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

Tue Jan 26 15:31:11 UTC 2016

+1
Stephanie

On 2016-01-26 10:23, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
> I agree with Chuck that we need a diverse leadership but a larger team may
> pose other difficulties.
>
> This is a great discussion and I am encouraged that we have so much
> interest.
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
> Facebook Legal Dept.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/26/16, 5:40 AM, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> Gomes, Chuck" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> 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 don¹t feel strongly about the list of stakeholders but I am sensitive
>> to Don¹s comment about restricting the leadership to those who represent
>> an actual stakeholder.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do folks feel about adding a 5th leader who is an ³independent²?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have a conflict for the meeting today and will not be
>> able to attend.  It¹s 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_
>>> display_gnsosoi_Chuck-2BGomes-2BSOI&d=CwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=g
>>> vEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=btok6CidsBB2RHMhBLM5ndveAQWEGTwEG8ahuX5ajjM&s=PnG
>>> Q_xQkr4kj_S4aOgzXpRr4N9MIKmdj5iisaOtHEV4&e=
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>> _listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8
>>> xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=btok6CidsBB2RHMhBLM5ndveAQWEGTwEG8ahuX5ajjM&s=qht7x1J
>>> _g91Ch8BaVwk0lTgeF_X9NevjOKqQbiL0nkE&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>> listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=CwIGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF
>> 7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=btok6CidsBB2RHMhBLM5ndveAQWEGTwEG8ahuX5ajjM&s=qht7x1J_g9
>> 1Ch8BaVwk0lTgeF_X9NevjOKqQbiL0nkE&e=
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg