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

Tue Jan 26 14:31:01 UTC 2016

I support CHuck's original proposal.  This is after all a GNSO PDP, is 
it not?  If we start adding independents, things could get quite 
fractitious, in my view.  I think it is only common sense that the 
leaders come from the active community.
While I certainly agree with Liz Williams that neutrality would be 
desirable in the leadership team, it is my observation that folks who 
volunteer their time at ICANN (or are paid by their clients/employers to 
participate at ICANN) are rarely neutral. Capable of behaving in a 
neutral fashion as co-chairs, perhaps, but let us not be under any 
illusions about the neutrality of folks on this PDP.  The question seems 
to me, can we come up with a balanced approach that is maximally fair to 
all points of view.  In that respect, I certainly hope Chuck agrees to 
put himself forward as Chair.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-01-26 8:23, James Galvin wrote:
> I support this approach in principle.
>
> I don’t feel strongly about the list of stakeholders but I am 
> sensitive to Don’s comment about restricting the leadership to those 
> who represent an actual stakeholder.
>
> How do folks feel about adding a 5th leader who is an “independent”?
>
>
> Unfortunately, I have a conflict for the meeting today and will not be 
> able to attend.  It’s a one time conflict and I will otherwise be 
> available.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On 25 Jan 2016, at 15:56, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg