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

Tue Jan 26 16:13:35 UTC 2016

Hi,

I very much agree with Chuck here, and support his initial proposal of a 4-person leadership team from the GNSO. As he suggests, I do believe this constitution of a leadership team will indeed be helpful in facilitating the work of this group, particularly at times when there may be an apparent deadlock in conflicting views.

I also agree that setting the team up like this does not affect the ability of any working group member’s ability to participate fully in the substantive policy discussions and have his/her views considered fully.

It may be noteworthy to mention that the role of a GNSO WG Chair’s role is clearly described in the GNSO Operating procedures, as well as the process by which any disagreements between WG members and Chairs can be resolved. For details on this, I encourage folks to have a look at Annex 1 (Working Group Guidelines) of the Operating Procedures found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf

My only additional suggestion would be for the WG members to agree on the constitution of the leadership team, then let the leadership team itself decide how it would like to structure itself in terms of number of chairs/co-chairs and co-vice-chairs. It is them, after all, who will be doing the work.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:40 PM, 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