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

[Alan Greenberg]

To address one small point of this message, you said that the 
original proposal was made in good faith. Based on my experience of 
working with Chuck for over nine years, now I could not even imagine 
him doing anything other than acting in good faith. That was 
certainly never in doubt. But you may recall that by the end of the 
first call, he had agreed that perhaps representation from the four 
SG was not needed, but instead ensuring that the Co-chairs (or 
whatever) did represent the two "sides" in the issue. And I 
whole-heartedly agreed.

Alan

At 06/02/2016 07:47 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

>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>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160207/73bf6e91/attachment.html>