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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I hate to add another log on this fire...but one of the reasons I 
believe it important to have all GNSO SGs represented is that there are 
more than two sides to this issue.  As was evident in the EWG report 
(which is only one input to the policy discussion/conundrum we are 
tackling here) this thing is rather kaleidoscopic.  There are lots of 
issues to be resolved, each of which has a bearing on some other part of 
the puzzle.  Very hard to imagine how each aspect will be evaluated by 
the different members and groups.  Hence a need for the most even-handed 
representation in the leadership team, to ensure that when it shows up 
at the GNSO eventually, there will be no questions concerning fair 
representation.
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-02-07 18:56, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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). 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160207/d67b1d6b/attachment.html>