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

Tue Jan 26 13:54:51 UTC 2016

Hi, team-
I am broadly in support of the proposal by Chuck Gomes with two minor
amendments.
The first being I support the suggestion by Dr Liz Williams that the chair be an
independent figure to ensure representational balance.
The second being that the core leadership team should consist of five working
group members, being one representative from NCSG, CSG, RsSG, and RySG, along
with our independent Chair.
I look forward to participating in our meeting this afternoon.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline (NCSG affiliation)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Gomes, Chuck < cgomes at verisign.com > wrote:
When I was thinking this through, I considered a larger leadership team but I
think we need to be cautious about having a leadership team that is too large. I
have been thinking about another way we could increase diversity and
representation of Constituencies, Advisory Groups and even those who are
independent, but I think it is best to hold off on that until we get the
leadership team in place and the WG kicked off. A leadership team of four maps
very well to the GNSO Council structure and I think that has important value,
but that does not have to limit the WG in any way in terms of influence by those
who are independent or who are not associated with a SG.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: James Galvin [mailto: jgalvin at afilias.info ]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:23 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160126/150d61d7/attachment.html>