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

Wed Jan 27 14:13:37 UTC 2016

Dear Members,

While I do agree that GNSO has important role here, I emphasise that leaders
from other stakeholder groups must be equally involved. In order to develop
a fair policy practical experience of each working group member will have a
significant role .Therefore independent cyber law experts or cyber security
experts  may be consulted as group member by segregating the domain
/stakeholder group .If I have correctly understood independent experts will
belong to non commercial  category.Please correct me if It is otherwise. 

I do agree with Mr. Chuck suggestions on creating different leaders for
different teams that will work on the project.

With Regards,

Karnika Seth

Cyberlaw expert. & Founding Partner

SETH ASSOCIATES

ADVOCATES  AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS

,

Website:  <http://www.sethassociates.com>
www.sethassociates.com,www.lexcyberia.com

E-mail:  <mailto:mail at sethassociates.com> mail at sethassociates.com,
<mailto:mail at lexcyberia.com> mail at lexcyberia.com

<http://www.lexisnexis.in/computers-internet-and-new-technology-laws-2013.ht
m>   

 <http://in.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110>
<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110> LinkedIn
<https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1>
<https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1> Facebook
<https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>   <https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>
Twitter

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: 26 January 2016 22:06
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership

I agree with Alan on this - why is this restricted GNSO?

But I do agree in the need for more than one chair

Holly

On 27 Jan 2016, at 12:20 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:

I often support Chuck in his suggestions on how to structure things, but
sadly I cannot in this case.

As with many others, I agree to the multi-person leadership group, and will
not push much for one option over another. And I agree with Liz that those
on the team should not be associated with strong views on the outcomes if at
all possible.

But Don is right! Restricting the leadership to GNSO people may be counter
productive and will definitely send exactly the wrong message to the overall
community. Multi-stakeholderism is not limited to the GNSO, and in the past,
we have had PDP WG leaders who were not part of the GNSO (myself included).
We may not end up with qualified volunteers from other parts of ICANN, since
the workload will be heavy. But a priori excluding them excluding them is
ill-conceived on multiple levels.

Alan

At 25/01/2016 03:56 PM, 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160127/4f9dfd25/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4979 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160127/4f9dfd25/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160127/4f9dfd25/image002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160127/4f9dfd25/image003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160127/4f9dfd25/image004.gif>