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

[Alan Greenberg]

For the record, I was not suggesting more people, 
but for not restricting it to the GNSO. I tend to 
feel that even 4 is too large.

Alan

At 26/01/2016 08:40 AM, Gomes, Chuck 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