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

Mon Feb 8 07:34:33 UTC 2016

Well expressed, Stephanie....!  

Patrick  

---- Original Message ----
From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Sent: Sun, Feb 7, 2016 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics

    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

_______________________________________________
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/20160208/5c569c1e/attachment.html>