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

Tue Jan 26 10:02:02 UTC 2016

Chuck,

I agree as well it will make the work load easier for us all

Regards

R

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 at 09:41 Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> Chuck
>
> I support your approach. It seems like the most logical and sensible way
> of approaching things.
>
> I’d also urge you to consider putting yourself forward for one of these
> positions, as you’ve always been one of the more balanced and sage members
> of the community that I’ve dealt with over the years.
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <
> cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Monday 25 January 2016 at 20:56
> 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 group’s
> 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 ICANN’s 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-- 
Richard Padilla MSc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160126/db52c484/attachment.html>