[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership Team - Deadline for objections Wed 10 Feb at 18.00 UTC

[Anderson, Marc]

I agree with Jim on all points.

I'm not objecting as I feel comfortable that a leadership team with Chuck as chair supported by Susan, Michele and David in a configuration that they will propose to the rest of the working group will do an excellent job.  I also recognize and agree with the point made on today's call that we need to select a leadership team and move forward.

I do want to echo Jim's point about the purpose of the pole.  It seemed to me that the pole was created in response to the volume of email created by people "seconding" candidates applying for leadership positions.  Like Jim I did not participate in the candidate support poll but did participate in the leadership characteristics poll.  I certainly would have participated in the candidate poll had I know it would be used in this manner.  I don't think it's necessary to re-open to poll.

While Chuck as chair isn't one of them, this PDP will be dealing with a number of contentious items and it's essential that we are clear in what we are asking and communicating going forward.

Thank you,
Marc



-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James Galvin
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 1:24 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership Team - Deadline for objections Wed 10 Feb at 18.00 UTC

This is not an objection but I do want to repeat the comment I made during the meeting we just had.

First, I’m not objecting because I appreciate that we operate with a consensus driven process and this call for any objections is a tool in that process.

However, the concern I stated during the meeting is that when the poll was created it was never clearly stated that it was going to be used as a consensus judging tool to select the leadership.

Less than 1 third of the working group members responded to the opportunity to indicate support for leadership candidates while almost 2 thirds responded to the opportunity to identify desirable characteristics.  If you just look at the numbers clearly the “top 4” could change dramatically if more people had participated in the poll, and I have to believe that more would have participated if they had known it would be important to do so.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not participate in the candidate support poll while I did participate in the leadership characteristics poll.

It is essential that “formal questions” be clearly stated as such so that working group members have an opportunity to fully evaluate the consequences of their actions (or non-actions).

Thanks,

Jim





On 9 Feb 2016, at 12:42, Marika Konings wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Those on the RDS PDP WG call today, agreed to confirm Chuck Gomes as 
> Chair of the RDS PDP WG.
>
> It was also agreed that WG members should be given an opportunity to 
> indicate any concerns you may have with moving forward with the top 
> four candidates that were identified in the poll, namely Chuck Gomes, 
> Susan Kawaguchi, Michele Neylon and David Cake (see
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-STDRVQ3Q/) as the leadership 
> team of the RDS PDP WG, with the leadership team tasked to organise 
> themselves in the form of chair/vice-chairs or co-chairs.
>
> If you have any objections to this approach, please make your 
> objection know on the mailing list by Wednesday 10 February at 18.00 
> UTC as a desire was expressed on the call to move forward with the 
> normal course of business as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
> _______________________________________________
> 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