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

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Jan 28 17:57:04 UTC 2016 

Having watched Chuck in action on a couple of the working groups he has 
mentioned, I fully endorse his candidature.  He does an excellent job as 
a neutral chair.  I would suggest that, supported by co-chairs from the 
various stakeholder groups, we would have a fair and balanced leadership 
team for this initiative.
Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-01-28 18:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> 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 
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160128/3453fee2/attachment.html>

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