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

[Alan Greenberg]

I guess we went to different leadership training programs. We went 
from one Chair to Vice-Chairs or Co-chairs to spread the work, not to 
ensure that our leader was even-handed.

But I am clearly in a minority here, and will let those with a 
superior understanding guide us.

Alan

At 07/02/2016 09:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>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
>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160207/d0a0699a/attachment.html>