<html>
<body>
Those new to ICANN may also find this summary web page useful:<br>
<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en<br><br>
</a>It expands all of these acronyms and provides links to web pages for
each group.<br><br>
For offline reference, you may also find this beginner's guide
useful:<br>
<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/participating-08nov13-en.pdf" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/participating-08nov13-en.pdf</a>
<br><br>
Among other things, this guide summarizes each groups' role and provides
points of contact for those who may be interested in joining a
stakeholder group, constituency, supporting organization, or advisory
committee.<br><br>
Best Regards,<br>
Lisa<br><br>
<br>
At 07:49 AM 1/27/2016, Marika Konings wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Karnika,<br><br>
Thank you for your feedback – it may be helpful to re-emphasize that
participation in this Working Group happens on an equal footing for all
participants, regardless of whether or not you are affiliated with a GNSO
Stakeholder Group (SG) or Constituency (C) or another ICANN Supporting
Organisation (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC), or no affiliation at all.
What has been discussed by the WG is whether it would be beneficial to
have representation from GNSO Stakeholder Groups in the WG leadership
team as eventually the WG recommendations will need to be considered by
the GNSO Council which is composed of representatives of those
Stakeholder Groups and as such it may ensure that particular
sensitivities or concerns are dealt with appropriately by the WG before
the recommendations are finalised for submission. <br><br>
In their applications, WG members were asked to indicate their
affiliation (i.e. if you are a member of a GNSO SG/C or SO/AC). For those
not affiliated or not wanting to be affiliated, those have been
identified as individuals. There is no such category as ‘independent
experts’ although the WG at some point may identify a need to identify,
approach and consult independent experts if it is determined that the
needed expertise is not available within the WG membership.<br><br>
I hope this is helpful.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Marika <br><br>
From:
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of karnika
<<a href="mailto:karnika@sethassociates.com">
karnika@sethassociates.com</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday 27 January 2016 at 08:13<br>
To:
"<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership<br><br>
Dear Members,<br>
<br>
While I do agree that GNSO has important role here, I emphasise that
leaders from other stakeholder groups must be equally involved. In order
to develop a fair policy practical experience of each working group
member will have a significant role .Therefore independent cyber law
experts or cyber security experts may be consulted as group member
by segregating the domain /stakeholder group .If I have correctly
understood independent experts will belong to non commercial
category.Please correct me if It is otherwise. <br>
<br>
I do agree with Mr. Chuck suggestions on creating different leaders for
different teams that will work on the project.<br>
<br>
<br>
With Regards,<br>
<br>
<b>Karnika Seth<br>
</b><i>Cyberlaw expert. & Founding Partner<br>
</i> <br>
<br>
<b>SETH ASSOCIATES<br>
</b>ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS<br>
<br>
<i>,<br>
</i>
<img src="cid:image001.jpg@01D1593B.040F7740" width=226 height=89 alt="[]">
</i><br>
<br>
<b>Website</b>:
<a href="http://www.sethassociates.com">www.sethassociates.com</a>
,<a href="http://www.lexcyberia.com" eudora="autourl">
www.lexcyberia.com</a><br>
<b>E-mail</b>:
<a href="mailto:mail@sethassociates.com">mail@sethassociates.com</a>,
<a href="mailto:mail@lexcyberia.com">mail@lexcyberia.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://in.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110">
<img src="cid:image002.gif@01D1593B.040F7740" width=21 height=21 alt="[]">
</a> <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110">
LinkedIn</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1">
<img src="cid:image003.gif@01D1593B.040F7740" width=21 height=21 alt="[]">
</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1">Facebook</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/karnikaseth">
<img src="cid:image004.gif@01D1593B.040F7740" width=21 height=21 alt="[]">
</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/karnikaseth">Twitter</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Holly
Raiche<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 26 January 2016 22:06<br>
<b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
<b>Cc:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership<br>
<br>
I agree with Alan on this - why is this restricted GNSO?<br>
<br>
But I do agree in the need for more than one chair<br>
<br>
Holly<br>
On 27 Jan 2016, at 12:20 am, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>I often support Chuck in his suggestions on how to structure things,
but sadly I cannot in this case.<br><br>
<dd>As with many others, I agree to the multi-person leadership group,
and will not push much for one option over another. And I agree with Liz
that those on the team should not be associated with strong views on the
outcomes if at all possible.<br><br>
<dd>But Don is right! Restricting the leadership to GNSO people may be
counter productive and will definitely send exactly the wrong message to
the overall community. Multi-stakeholderism is not limited to the GNSO,
and in the past, we have had PDP WG leaders who were not part of the GNSO
(myself included). We may not end up with qualified volunteers from other
parts of ICANN, since the workload will be heavy. But a priori excluding
them excluding them is ill-conceived on multiple levels.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<dd>At 25/01/2016 03:56 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>In my personal capacity as a volunteer for the RDS PDP WG I would
like to propose the following approach to the WG leadership that I think
would be very helpful in facilitating our productivity:<br>
<dd>· Have a leadership
team consisting of 4 WG members plus the ICANN staff support
personnel.<br>
<dd>· Have one leader
from each of the four GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs):<br>
<dd>1. Non-Commercial SG (NCSG)<br>
<dd>2. Commercial SG (CSG)<br>
<dd>3. Registrars SG (RrSG)<br>
<dd>4. Registries SG (RySG).<br>
<dd>· The four leaders
could serve in one of two ways:<br>
<dd>o 2 co-chairs & 2 co-vice-chairs<br>
<dd>o 1 chair & 3 co-vice chairs.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>In recent years in the GNSO, a team leadership approach for WGs and
even for the GNSO Council itself has proved to be quite effective.
It not only spreads the workload around but more importantly it allows
for a small team of experienced people to collaborate together in leading
the group’s efforts. Here are a few examples where a collaborative
leadership team have been used:<br>
<dd>· The GNSO Council
has a chair plus two vice chairs.<br>
<dd>· The Policy &
Implementation WG had two co-chairs and two vice-chairs.<br>
<dd>· The CWG Stewardship
has two co-chairs.<br>
<dd>· The CCWG
Accountability has three co-chairs.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>By adding a condition that each of the leadership team members come
from different SGs, it ensures that the chairs and vice chairs
collectively have expertise about all four of the GNSO stakeholder groups
and creates a situation where the leaders are well versed in the varying
viewpoints that exist across all four groups as well as differences
within their respective groups. I believe that this is especially
important for an area such as Registration Data Services (Whois) that has
been very controversial over the entirety of ICANN’s history.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>For those that are new to GNSO policy development processes, any
recommendations made by a WG have to eventually be approved by the GNSO
Council, which primarily consists of the four SGs. So Having all
SGs involved in the leadership of the WG from the beginning should
facilitate approval in the end.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>It is important to remember that the role of the leadership team is
to facilitate bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development in a neutral
and effective manner using a consensus based approach. This of
course means managing meetings and online work to ensure that the WG
charter requirements are satisfied. Hopefully, in most cases this
will mean guiding the full group in developing recommendations that most
if not all of the WG members can support. But, after diligent
efforts to reach consensus, there is still significant divergence about
certain proposed recommendations, it will be the leaders responsibility
to decide whether there is sufficient support in the WG to submit such
recommendations to the GNSO Council. Understanding this, it is
important that each SG endorse the person on the leadership team from its
group.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I hope that we can confirm whether or not there is support for this
approach in our WG call tomorrow. If there is, then it will guide
our efforts in finding qualified members to serve on the leadership team
as well as how to structure the team (2 co-chairs + 2 co-vice-chairs or 1
chair + 3 co-vice-chairs).<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I would be happy to respond to any questions anyone has.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Chuck Gomes<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>P.S. – For those that do not know me, my Statement of Interest (SOI)
can be found here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Chuck+Gomes+SOI">
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Chuck+Gomes+SOI</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br><br>
</dl>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br><br>
</dl> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>