<html>
<body>
Someone who signs up to run this WG is letting themselves in for a lot of
work and no doubt a lot of anguish. We would be stupid to select someone
who is not suitably qualified. Given that, I fail to see why their
affiliation matters. In other environments, we would use a paid
consultant with good facilitation skills to chair such a group.<br><br>
I have not seen any SSAC people volunteering, but I know of a few where
if they DID volunteer, we would be very foolish not to take them up on
their offer.<br><br>
I am struck by how silent all of the long-time GNSO contributors are on
this thread.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 05/02/2016 04:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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<br><br>
On 2016-02-05 13:26, Carlton Samuels wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. <br><br>
+1.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
-Carlton <br><br>
<br>
==============================<br>
Carlton A Samuels<br>
Mobile: 876-818-1799<br>
<font color="#33CC00"><i>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround</i></font><br>
=============================<br><br>
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I enter this discussion with some trepidation, but I have no
choice.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>I must thank Liz who is the only "GNSO" person I can recall
who objected, and I support what she said.<br><br>
<dd>I find this entire conversation very
sad.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 04/02/2016 09:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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” itall of us are capable of leading"<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Kind regards, <br>
<dd>Stephanie Perrin<br>
<dd>On 2016-02-04 6:07, Holly Raiche wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Point of clarification James <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>Holly<br>
<dd>On 4 Feb 2016, at 6:25 pm, James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hi Holly,<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>-jg<br><br>
<dd>Sent from my iPad<br><br>
<dd>On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:59, Holly Raiche
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hi James <br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>Just checking<br><br>
<dd>Holly<br>
<dd>On 4 Feb 2016, at 5:15 pm, James Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
<dd>Bit of a wall of text but <br>
<dd>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>
<dd>-jg<br><br>
<dd>From: <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Sana Ali
<<a href="mailto:sana.ali2030@gmail.com">sana.ali2030@gmail.com</a>
><br>
<dd>Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.<br>
<dd>To: Jennifer Gore Standiford
<<a href="mailto:JStandiford@web.com">JStandiford@web.com</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: "<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>
<dd>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP
WG leadership team characteristics<br><br>
<dd>Dear Stephanie, <br><br>
<dd>I’ll respectfully disagree with you here.<br><br>
<dd>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
onprior participation, which can become a slippery slope.<br><br>
<dd>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>
<dd>My two cents (with full disclosure that these are indeed rather
newly-minted pennies)<br>
<dd>Sana Ali<br><br>
<dd><a href="mailto:sana.ali2030@gmail.com">sana.ali2030@gmail.com</a><br>
<dd><a href="https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030" eudora="autourl">
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford
<<a href="mailto:JStandiford@web.com">JStandiford@web.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Agreed. +1<br><br>
<dd>On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin
<<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">
stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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>
<dd>Stephanie Perrin<br><br>
<dd>On 2016-02-02 15:42, Marika Konings wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Dear All,<br><br>
<dd>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">
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>
<dd>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">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>.<br><br>
<dd>Best regards,<br><br>
<dd>Marika<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>_______________________________________________
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://</a>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">
mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre></blockquote><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></blockquote>
<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></blockquote><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></blockquote>
</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd><pre>_______________________________________________
<dd>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<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></pre>
</blockquote><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></blockquote><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></blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>