[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership

[Wanawit Ahkuputra]

Dear Chuck,

+1 to your approach and I do believe that it would be helpful to guide the
first meeting .

Regards,
Wanawit Ahkuputra
Deputy Executive Director
ETDA
Electronic Transactions Development Agency (Public Organization)

Mob.: +668 9301 8818
Email: wanawit at etda.or.th



From:  <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes at verisign.com>
Date:  Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 03:56
To:  "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership

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:
·        Have a leadership team consisting of 4 WG members plus the ICANN
staff support personnel.

·        Have one leader from each of the four GNSO Stakeholder Groups
(SGs):

1.      Non-Commercial SG (NCSG)

2.      Commercial SG (CSG)

3.      Registrars SG (RrSG)

4.      Registries SG (RySG).

·        The four leaders could serve in one of two ways:

o  2 co-chairs & 2 co-vice-chairs

o  1 chair & 3 co-vice chairs.

 
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 group¹s
efforts. Here are a few examples where a collaborative leadership team have
been used:
·        The GNSO Council has a chair plus two vice chairs.

·        The Policy & Implementation WG had two co-chairs and two
vice-chairs.

·        The CWG Stewardship has two co-chairs.

·        The CCWG Accountability has three co-chairs.

 
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 ICANN¹s history.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
I would be happy to respond to any questions anyone has.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
P.S. ­ For those that do not know me, my Statement of Interest (SOI) can be
found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Chuck+Gomes+SOI
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160126/506b1886/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160126/506b1886/smime.p7s>