[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Jan 28 17:12:10 UTC 2016
I strongly encourage newcomers to review the information in the two links Lisa provided. For the most part I think they are self-explanatory but am quite sure that they will generate questions. I think I can speak for the more experience members on the WG, that any of us will be happy to respond to questions that you may have. No question is dumb and answers will likely benefit multiple people and will facilitate more effective participation in our work.
Chuck
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 4:32 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS PDP WG Leadership
Those new to ICANN may also find this summary web page useful:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-en
It expands all of these acronyms and provides links to web pages for each group.
For offline reference, you may also find this beginner's guide useful:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/participating-08nov13-en.pdf
Among other things, this guide summarizes each groups' role and provides points of contact for those who may be interested in joining a stakeholder group, constituency, supporting organization, or advisory committee.
Best Regards,
Lisa
At 07:49 AM 1/27/2016, 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<http://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<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/20160128/4f6da2fb/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list