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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 19:16:18 UTC 2016 

Well said, Stephanie.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of karnika <
> karnika at sethassociates.com>
> Date: Wednesday 27 January 2016 at 08:13
> To: " <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <
> 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,www.lexcyberia.com
>
> *E-mail*: mail at sethassociates.com, 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
> <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>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>
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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/20160127/19865bc9/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list