[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Jan 27 16:15:21 UTC 2016
AS someone who is a relative newcomer to ICANN (February 2013) who has
participated in quite a few working groups and the EWG, I would like to
add that it takes quite a while to understand the community, the
processes, and the history at ICANN. I arrived as an "independent
expert" with quite a bit of experience in chairing various
multi-stakeholder activities, but I would in all humility suggest that
chairing or co-chairing an initiative such as this requires a set of
skills best gained through experience with ICANN and its processes. Yes
we need particular expertise, and that is why the call for participation
has been so broad.
When I use the word independent, I mean that I have no client that is
paying me to participate, nor an employer that has an interest in my
participation. I think it might be useful in this regard if persons who
use that word explain what they mean by it, because it is not clear to
me that we have a common understanding of our usage of the term. I also
note that some individuals have identified as non-commercial in their
SOIs, and may not be aware that we have a group called the NCUC
(Non-commercial users constituency) and if they are not members, they
might want to use another term. Please refer to our website
www.ncuc.org. We also have a stakeholder group called the NCSG, or
non-commercial stakeholder group, same applies.
Kind regards
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-01-27 9:49, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear Karnika,
>
> Thank you for your feedback – it may be helpful to re-emphasize that
> participation in this Working Group happens on an equal footing for
> all participants, regardless of whether or not you are affiliated with
> a GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG) or Constituency (C) or another ICANN
> Supporting Organisation (SO) or Advisory Committee (AC), or no
> affiliation at all. What has been discussed by the WG is whether it
> would be beneficial to have representation from GNSO Stakeholder
> Groups in the WG leadership team as eventually the WG recommendations
> will need to be considered by the GNSO Council which is composed of
> representatives of those Stakeholder Groups and as such it may ensure
> that particular sensitivities or concerns are dealt with appropriately
> by the WG before the recommendations are finalised for submission.
>
> In their applications, WG members were asked to indicate their
> affiliation (i.e. if you are a member of a GNSO SG/C or SO/AC). For
> those not affiliated or not wanting to be affiliated, those have been
> identified as individuals. There is no such category as ‘independent
> experts’ although the WG at some point may identify a need to
> identify, approach and consult independent experts if it is determined
> that the needed expertise is not available within the WG membership.
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of karnika
> <karnika at sethassociates.com <mailto:karnika at sethassociates.com>>
> Date: Wednesday 27 January 2016 at 08:13
> To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership
>
> 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*: www.sethassociates.com
> <http://www.sethassociates.com>,www.lexcyberia.com
>
> *E-mail*: mail at sethassociates.com <mailto:mail at sethassociates.com>,
> mail at lexcyberia.com <mailto:mail at lexcyberia.com>
>
> <http://in.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110>LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karnika-seth/3/87/110><https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1>Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/karnika.seth.1><https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/karnikaseth>
>
> *From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160127/b1478408/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list