[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics

Sun Feb 7 07:33:44 UTC 2016

Hi everyone,

+1 @Amr.
Cheers !
-Olevie-

2016-02-06 12:47 GMT+00:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Relative to others who have already commented (and more who haven’t), I
> cannot claim to be a long-time GNSO contributor. However, I believe I have
> been around long enough to disagree with the notion presented by some of my
> colleagues and friends in the GNSO (and NCSG) that members of other SOs/ACs
> should not participate in leadership roles in GNSO WGs. The duties and
> guidelines by which WG chairs carry out their role is, to an extent,
> documented in section 2.2.1 of Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf). I see no
> reason why members of At-Large (just an example) cannot carry out those
> duties. For those who are unaware, there are members of the At-Large
> community, such as Alan, Holly and Carlton who have been long-time
> contributors to GNSO processes. In fact, there are folks from At-Large who
> have had a significant role in the development of the GNSO Operating
> Procedures themselves over the years.
>
> Another point I believe to be of relevance is that there are redress
> procedures in place in the event that disagreements occur between WG
> members and leadership involving the Council liaison, regardless of the
> SO/AC affiliation of the WG chair/co-chair. This means that technically,
> the only person who cannot serve on a GNSO WG’s leadership team is the
> liaison, as Susan has pointed out in her candidacy statement.
>
> Having said that, I still agree with Chuck’s suggestion of a team of four
> GNSO members - one from each of the GNSO SGs - making up the leadership
> team for this PDP WG. I am of this opinion, not because others are
> unqualified or undesirable, but rather because I see advantages to this
> formula towards reaching consensus recommendations. WHOIS has been a
> contentious issue for decades now, and although the GNSO SGs do not
> represent absolutely everyone with an interest in the topic, most (if not
> all) the conflicting interests themselves are represented in those four
> groups. Having reps from these groups on the leadership team should
> maximize the likelihood that all concerns and issues expressed during the
> course of our work receive fair and thorough attention. This will also,
> hopefully, be of assistance to the GNSO Council when the time comes at the
> end of each stage of this PDP to adopt the consensus recommendations that
> we produce. I also believe the four leadership candidates from the GNSO
> also fulfil the other requirements that are desirable in a WG chair or
> co-chair. If I believed any of them didn’t, I would personally not be able
> to support the candidate I believed to by unable to carry out the duties
> required of him/her.
>
> My last point in this rant (apologies for the length of this message) is
> that I wholeheartedly disagree with views that the proposal for 4
> individuals from the GNSO making up the leadership team is, in any way,
> exclusionary or unfair to others. I’m not saying that this view does not
> deserve to be respected and addressed, just that I believe it to be
> inaccurate. This was a proposal made in good faith, with a rationale that
> is meant to be of benefit to the entire group and the task we are about to
> undertake. For this proposal to work, there would need to be broad
> agreement across the membership of this group, regardless of the members’
> affiliations, so nobody is being excluded from anything here. If we could
> focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal itself (as well
> as any counter-proposals), rather than (IMHO) waste time mischaracterising
> it as exclusionary of suggestive of insider-ness, then maybe we can, as a
> group reach a decision that the GNSO Council can confirm as is ultimately
> required.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > Someone who signs up to run this WG is letting themselves in for a lot
> of work and no doubt a lot of anguish. We would be stupid to select someone
> who is not suitably qualified. Given that, I fail to see why their
> affiliation matters. In other environments, we would use a paid consultant
> with good facilitation skills to chair such a group.
> >
> > I have not seen any SSAC people volunteering, but I know of a few where
> if they DID volunteer, we would be very foolish not to take them up on
> their offer.
> >
> > I am struck by how silent all of the long-time GNSO contributors are on
> this thread.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 05/02/2016 04:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >> I am sorry if you find the discussion sad, Alan (and Carlton and Holly)
> but in the context of recent CCWG activities, I think it is very
> important.  If the GAC and the SSAC also had candidates, this GNSO pdp
> would be led by ACs, not the stakeholder groups who comprise the GNSO.  I
> don't think this is acceptable. Nothing precludes vigorous and active
> participation in the pdp, we are only talking about leadership.  And if you
> don't all know how deeply I respect your contributions, let me say it now.
> This is not about individuals.
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Stephanie
> >>
> >> On 2016-02-05 13:26, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >>> I purposely did not respond to this thread because I know Alan is on
> here and I wanted him to tell his own story. Now I feel compelled to give
> public support.
> >>>
> >>> +1.
> >>>
> >>> I can attest to the substance of facts he recorded.  And while for
> this engagement I too would preferentially select the leadership from GNSO
> ranks for reasons already aired, I believe that a blanket order against
> non-GNSO aspirants to leadership would be a retrograde step.
> >>>
> >>> There are many paths to salvation. But what is absolutely required is
> leadership that is fit to purpose.  We have a semblance of purpose already
> defined. And we have a fairly well-defined frame to evaluate aspirants for
> leadership. GNSO affiliation is weighted here.  But in the end, it is one
> and only one attribute.  A stinker (for what is required) that is
> GNSO-labeled would be counterintuitive.
> >>>
> >>> -Carlton
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ==============================
> >>> Carlton A Samuels
> >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> >>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> >>> =============================
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
> >>> I enter this discussion with some trepidation, but I have no choice.
> >>>
> >>> Before I start, I will point out that I have no interest in a
> leadership role in this WG - my plate is quite full already.
> >>>
> >>> I served as a ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for EIGHT years. I believe I
> hold the record for service on the GNSO in ANY role, other than that held
> by Glen de Saint GÃ©ry (Marika will top me in a few months).
> >>>
> >>> At my first meeting as a novice to ICANN, I was somewhat amazed to
> find that the then-current ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, Bret Fausett, was one
> of the GNSO presenters in a public session. Somehow it surprised me that
> they would let a "foreigner" speak on their behalf.
> >>>
> >>> I was appointed as the ALAC Liaison at the end of that meeting, and I
> quickly learned not to be surprised. With very few exceptions over the
> eight years, I felt welcomed and fairly treated by the GNSO as a group and
> by the vast majority of Councillors individually. Along the way I played
> key roles in a very large number of PDP and other WGs, including Chairing a
> PDP WG.
> >>>
> >>> I totally agree with those who say that the leaders of this new group
> should not be newbies and need a good history in ICANN and the GNSO and
> GNSO WGs. To the extent possible (and it is not always possible), WG
> leaders should not be espousing the positions of their constituency. Yes,
> understanding the various positions is important, but that is not
> necessarily a characteristic of someone who is themselves a "believer".
> >>>
> >>> I will have no problem if the leaders of this WG end up being from
> GNSO groups, but the message being sent that the GNSO cannot accept having
> outsiders lead one of their WGs is counter to what I understood about the
> GNSO in my eight years, and is counter to where I think that the GNSO
> should be going. Now is NOT the time to become more insular and suspicious
> of anyone who does not bear an insider logo on their T-shirt.
> >>>
> >>> I will also note that people move around in their ICANN life. When I
> started, Bret Fausett, as I mentioned, was with At-Large, as he was for ten
> years according to his ICANNWiki entry), Avri Dora was a NomCom appointee,
> and soon after became Council Chair (the ONLY GNSO Chair who was not a
> member of a Contracted Party), Stephane Van Gelder was a Registrar, Roberto
> Gaetano, was ALAC Liaison to the Board, later Board member and Vice-Chair
> and later he co-chaired a GNSO PDP! And Liz Williams was an ICANN staff
> member working with the GNSO and Donna Austin was also an ICANN staff
> member. Where you are today says little of their past history or experience.
> >>>
> >>> I must thank Liz who is the only "GNSO" person I can recall who
> objected, and I support what she said.
> >>>
> >>> I find this entire conversation very sad.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> At 04/02/2016 09:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>>> I cannot speak for James, but I will repeat that I do object to ICANN
> volunteers from other SGs playing a leadership role, even wonderful
> contenders such as Holly!  Given the somewhat tumultuous discussions that
> have gone on at the CCWG over the past year, it seems to me prudent that
> the GNSO lead its own processes.  Furthermore, the WHOIS debates over the
> past 15 years have amply demonstrated the different economic and policy
> interests in the data, and these interests tend to be sharply divided along
> stakeholder groups.  Ensuring a balance of those stakeholder groups on the
> leadership team from the get-go will help diminish perceptions of
> unfairness and lack of trust.
> >>>>
> >>>> That in no way diminishes the important role and contributions of
> volunteers to this committee, and I would stress that there are likely to
> be be working groups established in this (doubtless multi-year effort)
> where people can contribute in a leader role.  However, this is undoubtedly
> going to be a fractious process and I think it is reasonable to look for
> previous participation at ICANN, not necessarily leadership of a pdp per
> se, but demonstrated ability to remain neutral, understand procedure, and
> support staff who are going to be doing a great deal of work for us.  With
> great respect to all volunteers, I don't think this is a role for those who
> have not recently participated in at least some kind of working group at
> ICANN.  It is very important that we have a broad range of expertise and
> talent represented here, but let us be clear about the various roles we all
> will be playing.
> >>>> My original point, which James clarified far better than I had
> originally expressed it, is that volunteers who are not used to ICANN and
> its processes will not understand any of the political questions embedded
> in the poll, meaning no disrespect to staff who created that poll.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I may reiterate the point that Michele made, many of the SOIs of
> people who have volunteered for this work need serious editing and
> clarification.  If staff could review the list and reach out to those in
> question it would be appreciated.  Our membership list for NCUC is public,
> non-members are welcome to apply.
> >>>> And if I may respond to a point that Dr. Williams made: "I would
> suggest that we leave it to the leadership group to decide who â€œleadsâ€
> it…>>>> all of us are capable of leading"
> >>>> 1.  We are discussing the process of how to select that leadership
> group at the moment, once that group is determined, how they spell one
> another off is of course up to them with group concensus, providing
> procedures are duly followed (and I for one depend on Marika to remind us
> of procedures on a regular basis)
> >>>> 2.  With great respect, we are not all equal in our leadership
> ability and experience.  This is why several of us are insisting on
> demonstrated ability to perform a neutral, balanced role in an ICANN
> setting.  I think it is quite challenging.  For those who are new to ICANN,
> following this group for a year or so every week will give you a rich and
> varied experience which will doubtless be useful in future efforts.
> >>>> I am sorry to go on at such length, but I wanted to dispel any
> impression I had given that I was intending this to be an insider
> process....far from it, I am very keen on recruiting (for instance) some
> individuals who have knowledge of data protection and human rights law who
> have rarely in the past participated at ICANN, resulting in unfortunate
> policies that violate national law. However, such new
> individuals/volunteers with varied expertise are, regardless of past
> leadership roles, perhaps not the best choices for the leadership team.  I
> speak as a newbie with only 3 years of working experience at ICANN, who has
> now participated in at least 6 working groups.  Doing a good job here, in
> my view, requires a lot of learning and bandwidth.
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>> On 2016-02-04 6:07, Holly Raiche wrote:
> >>>>> Point of clarification James
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we all put our hands together when Chuck put his hand up.
> He is the obvious Chair of this PDP from my perspective (and, I believe, a
> large number of hoers) - with his own stated qualification that it is for
> Phase one.  But we also all agreed that he would need help - Vice-chairs.
> Are you objecting to other ICANN folk (or others with loads of ICANN
> experience) in those positions as well?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Holly
> >>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 6:25 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net >
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Holly,
> >>>>>> Yes apologies for the typo and yes as I said later in the post I do
> object to GNSO PDPs being led by non-GNSO members. This is my own personal
> opinion but given the current discussions I thought I should be clear in my
> position.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -jg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:59, Holly Raiche < h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi James
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just a question about your first sentence - probably caused by
> what I think is a misspelling of â€˜linkingâ€™.  Are you seriously
> objecting to leadership roles for people who are not members of the GNSO?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just checking
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Holly
> >>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 5:15 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree with your point in principle Sana, but in reality I think
> a couple of us are concerned that the poll is being used for some strange
> questions that are more political in nature such as the question on
> leadership inkling people from outside of the GNSO. The results of this
> first poll will be used to determine eligibility for leadership positions
> based on a set of criteria that will be formed from the poll.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Given the extremely complex political aspects of WHOIS and its
> interrelations with so many areas of the community it may be extremely
> difficult for a newcomer to the entire PDP process and in particular to
> WHOIS/RDS to make a fully educated decision on some of the questions posed.
> So its not so much that experience and understanding of the landscape is
> necessary to be polled, but that to make a fully informed decision will
> take longer than the 2 weeks that the PDP has been running so far.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Take for example the issues that some of us have noticed with
> peoples SOIâ€™s, there are people wit incorrect information and
> affiliations, people claiming to be part of constituencies that they are
> not and people listing themselves as independent when they are known to
> have affiliations and sometimes business relationships with parties with
> commercial and legal interests at stake in the RDS discussions, until we
> get the basics such as these things correct its hard to take an informed
> decision on the need or want to take an independent member of the working
> group into a leadership role that is not GNSO affiliated.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also there is a principle involved here, I firmly and strongly
> believe that the GNSO operates its membership in an open and inclusive
> manner, where almost everyone can find a home for themselves if they wish
> to participate in the policy development process. And even if one feels the
> need to be independent we offer open membership to non-affiliated persons
> and they are considered fully during all dissuasions and decision making
> efforts. However at the core of the PDP is the fact that it is the GNSOs
> mission to create gTLD policy through its PDP, and that that role sits
> firmly with the GNSO not with the other ACs and Sos.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am likely going to open myself up to some backlash here but I
> am of the opinion that we cannot allow GNSO policy development to be led by
> other parts of the ICANN ecosphere, the role of the GNSO is diluted when we
> do so and results in a GNSO that is not performing the self-control that it
> needs to do in order to fulfil its own mission. In particular when it comes
> to ACâ€™s participating in leadership roles on a PDP like this I feel that
> it in some way violates the system of checks and balances that ICANN is
> formed on, ACâ€™s such as ALAC an the GAC have the opportunity to provide
> advice to the board when the results of GNSO PDPs come for consideration by
> the ICANN board, to wish to lead those same PDPs I feel takes two bites
> from the apple, and given that ALAC and At-Large members are free to
> participate in the policy development process as decisional members I think
> that adding leadership roles to that dynamic complicates things massively.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bit of a wall of text but
> >>>>>>>> TL;DR: Its the GNSOs role in ICANN to produce policy for gTLDs
> therefore this needs to be a GNSO led process with open and collaborative
> membership.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -jg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: < gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sana Ali
> <sana.ali2030 at gmail.com >
> >>>>>>>> Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
> >>>>>>>> To: Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: " gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" < gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS
> PDP WG leadership team characteristics
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dear Stephanie,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Iâ€™ll respectfully disagree with you here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Experience should certainly be a matter of importance when
> determining who should be in leadership roles, but to suggest it should
> also be required for something as simple as voting on who should be in
> those roles, based on pretty straightforward and comprehensible principles,
> I find a bit dangerous. It inhibits participation based on…>>>>>>>> prior
> participation, which can become a slippery slope.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And from following the discussion, as a newcomer, I have at least
> picked up on the fact that even more experienced members of this group seem
> in no way unanimous on what should be the key characteristics of the team.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My two cents (with full disclosure that these are indeed rather
> newly-minted pennies)
> >>>>>>>> Sana Ali
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford <
> JStandiford at web.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Agreed. +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There is a fundamental problem here, in my view.  There are a
> great many members of the group who are not accustomed to ICANN and its
> SGs.  We are therefore asking them to vote on something with which they
> have no/little experience.  Not sure it is going to prove to be a useful
> survey.
> >>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2016-02-02 15:42, Marika Konings wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As discussed, staff has created a poll to solicit the WGâ€™s
> input on the key characteristics of the RDS PDP WG Leadership Team which we
> hope will help inform the the WGâ€™s deliberations on this topic during
> next weekâ€™s meeting. This poll will be followed by a second poll later
> this week which will allow WG members to indicate which candidates they
> would like to endorse for the leadership team. To participate in the poll,
> please go tohttps://s.zoomerang.com/r/RDSPDPWGleadership. If you have
> difficulties accessing this page and/or completing the poll, please contact
> me off-list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please note that this poll is for WG members only. If you are
> an observer and want to become a member of the WG, please contact the GNSO
> secretariat at gnso-secs at icann.org.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Marika
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> >>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>

-- 
*Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI*

*Directeur-Adjoint de O and K IT SOLUTIONS sarl (Editeur de logiciels de
gestion SIGE (http!//www.oandkit.com <http://www.oandkit.com>)*

*Président/CEO de l'INTIC4DEV (Institut des TIC pour le développement)*

*SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC
(http://www.estetic.tg <http://www.estetic.tg>)*

*ICANN-GNSO-NCSG-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.npoc.org/
<http://www.npoc.org/>)Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net
<http://www.fossfa.net>) et Membre de Internet Society (www.isoc.org
<http://www.isoc.org>) *

*Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo*
ICANN - Fellow & Alumni

*Membre fondateur du RIK-Togo (Réseau Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160207/b0e0563a/attachment.html>