<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">Let not your heart be troubled Steph.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I know your observations are not particularised to individuals and would never take it that way. My reference is purely to leadership - and I do think we're agreed that the role must be sculpted for effect. I totally respect you position.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">Best,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Carlton</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I am sorry if you find the discussion sad, Alan (and Carlton and
Holly) but in the context of recent CCWG activities, I think it is
very important. If the GAC and the SSAC also had candidates, this
GNSO pdp would be led by ACs, not the stakeholder groups who
comprise the GNSO. I don't think this is acceptable. Nothing
precludes vigorous and active participation in the pdp, we are only
talking about leadership. And if you don't all know how deeply I
respect your contributions, let me say it now. This is not about
individuals.<br>
Kind regards, <br>
Stephanie<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 2016-02-05 13:26, Carlton Samuels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I purposely did not respond to
this thread because I know Alan is on here and I wanted him to
tell his own story. Now I feel compelled to give public
support. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">+1.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I can attest to the substance
of facts he recorded. And while for this engagement I too
would preferentially select the leadership from GNSO ranks for
reasons already aired, I believe that a blanket order against
non-GNSO aspirants to leadership would be a retrograde step.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">There are many paths to
salvation. But what is absolutely required is leadership that
is fit to purpose. We have a semblance of purpose already
defined. And we have a fairly well-defined frame to evaluate
aspirants for leadership. GNSO affiliation is weighted here.
But in the end, it is one and only one attribute. A stinker
(for what is required) that is GNSO-labeled would be
counterintuitive.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Carlton </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div><br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: <a href="tel:876-818-1799" value="+18768181799" target="_blank">876-818-1799</a><br>
<i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance,
Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>
=============================</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Alan
Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I enter this discussion with some trepidation, but I have
no
choice.<br>
<br>
Before I start, I will point out that I have no interest
in a leadership
role in this WG - my plate is quite full already.<br>
<br>
I served as a ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for EIGHT years. I
believe I hold
the record for service on the GNSO in ANY role, other than
that held by
Glen de Saint Géry (Marika will top me in a few months).<br>
<br>
At my first meeting as a novice to ICANN, I was somewhat
amazed to find
that the then-current ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, Bret
Fausett, was one of
the GNSO presenters in a public session. Somehow it
surprised me that
they would let a "foreigner" speak on their behalf. <br>
<br>
I was appointed as the ALAC Liaison at the end of that
meeting, and I
quickly learned not to be surprised. With very few
exceptions over the
eight years, I felt welcomed and fairly treated by the
GNSO as a group
and by the vast majority of Councillors individually.
Along the way I
played key roles in a very large number of PDP and other
WGs, including
Chairing a PDP WG.<br>
<br>
I totally agree with those who say that the leaders of
this new group
should not be newbies and need a good history in ICANN and
the GNSO and
GNSO WGs. To the extent possible (and it is not always
possible), WG
leaders should not be espousing the positions of their
constituency. Yes,
understanding the various positions is important, but that
is not
necessarily a characteristic of someone who is themselves
a
"believer".<br>
<br>
I will have no problem if the leaders of this WG end up
being from GNSO
groups, but the message being sent that the GNSO cannot
accept having
outsiders lead one of their WGs is counter to what I
understood about the
GNSO in my eight years, and is counter to where I think
that the GNSO
should be going. Now is NOT the time to become more
insular and
suspicious of anyone who does not bear an insider logo on
their
T-shirt.<br>
<br>
I will also note that people move around in their ICANN
life. When I
started, Bret Fausett, as I mentioned, was with At-Large,
as he was for
ten years according to his ICANNWiki entry), Avri Dora was
a NomCom
appointee, and soon after became Council Chair (the ONLY
GNSO Chair who
was not a member of a Contracted Party), Stephane Van
Gelder was a
Registrar, Roberto Gaetano, was ALAC Liaison to the Board,
later Board
member and Vice-Chair and later he co-chaired a GNSO PDP!
And Liz
Williams was an ICANN staff member working with the GNSO
and Donna Austin
was also an ICANN staff member. Where you are today says
little of their
past history or experience.<br>
<br>
I must thank Liz who is the only "GNSO" person I can
recall who
objected, and I support what she said.<br>
<br>
I find this entire conversation very sad.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Alan</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 04/02/2016 09:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I cannot speak for James, but
I
will repeat that I do object to ICANN volunteers
from other SGs playing a
leadership role, even wonderful contenders such as
Holly! Given the
somewhat tumultuous discussions that have gone on at
the CCWG over the
past year, it seems to me prudent that the GNSO lead
its own
processes. Furthermore, the WHOIS debates over the
past 15 years
have amply demonstrated the different economic and
policy interests in
the data, and these interests tend to be sharply
divided along
stakeholder groups. Ensuring a balance of those
stakeholder groups
on the leadership team from the get-go will help
diminish perceptions of
unfairness and lack of trust.<br>
<br>
That in no way diminishes the important role and
contributions of
volunteers to this committee, and I would stress
that there are likely to
be be working groups established in this (doubtless
multi-year effort)
where people can contribute in a leader role.
However, this is
undoubtedly going to be a fractious process and I
think it is reasonable
to look for previous participation at ICANN, not
necessarily leadership
of a pdp per se, but demonstrated ability to remain
neutral, understand
procedure, and support staff who are going to be
doing a great deal of
work for us. With great respect to all volunteers,
I don't think
this is a role for those who have not recently
participated in at least
some kind of working group at ICANN. It is very
important that we
have a broad range of expertise and talent
represented here, but let us
be clear about the various roles we all will be
playing. <br>
My original point, which James clarified far better
than I had originally
expressed it, is that volunteers who are not used to
ICANN and its
processes will not understand any of the political
questions embedded in
the poll, meaning no disrespect to staff who created
that poll.<br>
<br>
If I may reiterate the point that Michele made, many
of the SOIs of
people who have volunteered for this work need
serious editing and
clarification. If staff could review the list and
reach out to
those in question it would be appreciated. Our
membership list for
NCUC is public, non-members are welcome to apply.<br>
And if I may respond to a point that Dr. Williams
made: "I would
suggest that we leave it to the leadership group to
decide who “leads”
it…all of us are capable of leading"<br>
1. We are discussing the process of how to select
that leadership
group at the moment, once that group is determined,
how they spell one
another off is of course up to them with group
concensus, providing
procedures are duly followed (and I for one depend
on Marika to remind us
of procedures on a regular basis)<br>
2. With great respect, we are not all equal in our
leadership
ability and experience. This is why several of us
are insisting on
demonstrated ability to perform a neutral, balanced
role in an ICANN
setting. I think it is quite challenging. For
those who are
new to ICANN, following this group for a year or so
every week will give
you a rich and varied experience which will
doubtless be useful in future
efforts. <br>
I am sorry to go on at such length, but I wanted to
dispel any impression
I had given that I was intending this to be an
insider process....far
from it, I am very keen on recruiting (for instance)
some individuals who
have knowledge of data protection and human rights
law who have rarely in
the past participated at ICANN, resulting in
unfortunate policies that
violate national law. However, such new
individuals/volunteers with
varied expertise are, regardless of past leadership
roles, perhaps not
the best choices for the leadership team. I speak
as a newbie with
only 3 years of working experience at ICANN, who has
now participated in
at least 6 working groups. Doing a good job here,
in my view,
requires a lot of learning and bandwidth.<br>
Kind regards, <br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
On 2016-02-04 6:07, Holly Raiche wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Point of clarification James
<br>
<br>
I think we all put our hands together when Chuck
put his hand up.
He is the obvious Chair of this PDP from my
perspective (and, I believe,
a large number of hoers) - with his own stated
qualification that it is
for Phase one. But we also all agreed that he
would need help -
Vice-chairs. Are you objecting to other ICANN
folk (or others with
loads of ICANN experience) in those positions as
well?<br>
<br>
Holly<br>
On 4 Feb 2016, at 6:25 pm, James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Holly,<br>
Yes apologies for the typo and yes as I said
later in the post I do
object to GNSO PDPs being led by non-GNSO
members. This is my own
personal opinion but given the current
discussions I thought I should be
clear in my position.<br>
<br>
-jg<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:59, Holly Raiche
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net" target="_blank">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi James <br>
<br>
Just a question about your first sentence -
probably caused by what I
think is a misspelling of ‘linking’. Are you
seriously objecting to
leadership roles for people who are not
members of the GNSO?<br>
<br>
Just checking<br>
<br>
Holly<br>
On 4 Feb 2016, at 5:15 pm, James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I agree with your
point in
principle Sana, but in reality I think a
couple of us are concerned that
the poll is being used for some strange
questions that are more political
in nature such as the question on leadership
inkling people from outside
of the GNSO. The results of this first poll
will be used to determine
eligibility for leadership positions based
on a set of criteria that will
be formed from the poll. <br>
<br>
Given the extremely complex political
aspects of WHOIS and its
interrelations with so many areas of the
community it may be extremely
difficult for a newcomer to the entire PDP
process and in particular to
WHOIS/RDS to make a fully educated decision
on some of the questions
posed. So its not so much that experience
and understanding of the
landscape is necessary to be polled, but
that to make a fully informed
decision will take longer than the 2 weeks
that the PDP has been running
so far.<br>
<br>
Take for example the issues that some of us
have noticed with peoples
SOI’s, there are people wit incorrect
information and affiliations,
people claiming to be part of constituencies
that they are not and people
listing themselves as independent when they
are known to have
affiliations and sometimes business
relationships with parties with
commercial and legal interests at stake in
the RDS discussions, until we
get the basics such as these things correct
its hard to take an informed
decision on the need or want to take an
independent member of the working
group into a leadership role that is not
GNSO affiliated. <br>
<br>
Also there is a principle involved here, I
firmly and strongly believe
that the GNSO operates its membership in an
open and inclusive manner,
where almost everyone can find a home for
themselves if they wish to
participate in the policy development
process. And even if one feels the
need to be independent we offer open
membership to non-affiliated persons
and they are considered fully during all
dissuasions and decision making
efforts. However at the core of the PDP is
the fact that it is the GNSOs
mission to create gTLD policy through its
PDP, and that that role sits
firmly with the GNSO not with the other ACs
and Sos.<br>
<br>
I am likely going to open myself up to some
backlash here but I am of the
opinion that we cannot allow GNSO policy
development to be led by other
parts of the ICANN ecosphere, the role of
the GNSO is diluted when we do
so and results in a GNSO that is not
performing the self-control that it
needs to do in order to fulfil its own
mission. In particular when it
comes to AC’s participating in leadership
roles on a PDP like this I feel
that it in some way violates the system of
checks and balances that ICANN
is formed on, AC’s such as ALAC an the GAC
have the opportunity to
provide advice to the board when the results
of GNSO PDPs come for
consideration by the ICANN board, to wish to
lead those same PDPs I feel
takes two bites from the apple, and given
that ALAC and At-Large members
are free to participate in the policy
development process as decisional
members I think that adding leadership roles
to that dynamic complicates
things massively.<br>
<br>
Bit of a wall of text but <br>
TL;DR: Its the GNSOs role in ICANN to
produce policy for gTLDs therefore
this needs to be a GNSO led process with
open and collaborative
membership.<br>
<br>
-jg<br>
<br>
From:
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Sana Ali
<<a href="mailto:sana.ali2030@gmail.com" target="_blank">sana.ali2030@gmail.com</a>
><br>
Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.<br>
To: Jennifer Gore Standiford
<<a href="mailto:JStandiford@web.com" target="_blank">JStandiford@web.com</a>><br>
Cc:
"<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please
participate - poll on RDS PDP WG
leadership team characteristics<br>
<br>
Dear Stephanie, <br>
<br>
I’ll respectfully disagree with you here.<br>
<br>
Experience should certainly be a matter of
importance when determining
who should be in leadership roles, but to
suggest it should also be
required for something as simple as voting
on who should be in those
roles, based on pretty straightforward and
comprehensible principles, I
find a bit dangerous. It inhibits
participation based on…prior
participation, which can become a slippery
slope.<br>
<br>
And from following the discussion, as a
newcomer, I have at least picked
up on the fact that even more experienced
members of this group seem in
no way unanimous on what should be the key
characteristics of the
team.<br>
<br>
My two cents (with full disclosure that
these are indeed rather
newly-minted pennies)<br>
Sana Ali<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:sana.ali2030@gmail.com" target="_blank">sana.ali2030@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030" target="_blank">
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 3, 2016, at
8:00 PM,
Jennifer Gore Standiford
<<a href="mailto:JStandiford@web.com" target="_blank">JStandiford@web.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Agreed. +1<br>
<br>
On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie
Perrin
<<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">
stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">There is a
fundamental problem
here, in my view. There are a great
many members of the group who
are not accustomed to ICANN and its
SGs. We are therefore asking
them to vote on something with which
they have no/little
experience. Not sure it is going to
prove to be a useful
survey.<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<br>
On 2016-02-02 15:42, Marika Konings
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear All,<br>
<br>
As discussed, staff has created a poll
to solicit the WG’s input on the
key characteristics of the RDS PDP WG
Leadership Team which we hope will
help inform the the WG’s deliberations
on this topic during next week’s
meeting. This poll will be followed by
a second poll later this week
which will allow WG members to
indicate which candidates they would
like
to endorse for the leadership team. To
participate in the poll, please go
to
<a href="https://s.zoomerang.com/r/RDSPDPWGleadership" target="_blank">
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/RDSPDPWGleadership</a>. If you have
difficulties accessing this page
and/or completing the poll, please
contact me off-list.<br>
<br>
Please note that this poll is for WG
members only. If you are an observer
and want to become a member of the WG,
please contact the GNSO
secretariat at
<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Marika<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://</a><a href="http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>