[NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues

[Kathy Kleiman]

I think it works well when there is one representative from every 
(major) stakeholder group on the leadership team (co-chairs or chair and 
vice-chairs). That means that every (major) position is represented in 
the main considerations of scheduling, preparation, and presentation. 
This is how RDS works; and this is how RPM works. Otherwise, we wind up 
with situations like the Accreditation Groups with IPC as chair/lead, 
and BC as chair/lead.

One chair and two vice chairs would ensure that the CPH, and both sets 
of user groups are represented. In the absence of neutrality (for there 
will be little here), balance is key :-)!

Best, Kathy


On 6/20/2018 2:30 AM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
>
> Agree with Rafik, too. I don't see what is the big difference between 
> two co-chairs and chair/vice-chair set up (as I assume they are 
> interchangeable when one person can't be present at the time-consuming 
> meetings for whatever reason and they share the workload). I wouldn't 
> favour the council selection - rather leave it to the group (or SSC, 
> but I'd prefer the group selecting them). However, on the latter issue 
> I'll go with any position PC develops - to me 
> membership/size/participation is more important because if the group 
> is sizeable and manageable and -- as I prefer downsizing it to no more 
> 3 members from SG -- the leadership issue is less of a problem. These 
> two are intertwined, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tanya
>
>
> On 20/06/18 06:42, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> Rafik
>>
>> I agree with you. Two co-chairs or Chair and vice chair would be good.
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     as we started the discussion at EPDP DT on different topics, I
>>     hope that we can coordinate our positions here.
>>
>>     I don't have a strong preference in term of leardership
>>     composition but it shouldn't be itself big when we are trying to
>>     keep the EPDP team at small size. so 2 co-chair or chair and
>>     vice-chair is enough as they have to be from the team itself and
>>     we shouldn't jeoprodize participation. Selection by the team
>>     itself is fine. appointment by council has its own merit but I
>>     think that may lead to over-engineered solution and spending time
>>     in process (e.g. shall we delegate to SSC?).
>>
>>     I expect that GNSO council leadership should be ex-officio there
>>     to keep up to date but not participating in discussion.
>>
>>     please share your thoughts too.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     ps we will start soon our own process for appointing members
>>     while the work is going on membership requirements in the charter.
>>
>>
>>     *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
>>     <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "McGrady,
>>     Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
>>     *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14
>>     *To: *GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
>>     <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>     *Subject: *[council] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues
>>
>>     I think we have at least two questions to address:
>>
>>      1.  What is the ideal configuration of the leadership team for
>>         an EPDP?
>>
>>       * 1 chair
>>       * 2 or more co-chairs
>>       * 1 chair and 1 or more vice-chairs
>>       * Some other model
>>
>>      2.  Depending on the answer to the above, who should be
>>         nominated for leadership and what is that process? 
>>         Historically, WG’s select their own leadership and that is
>>         ratified by the Council. Is that the same plan for the ePDP?
>>
>>     Let’s discuss.
>>
>>     PS: From the chat on today’s call I saw (and want to capture for
>>     your discussion):
>>
>>     Ayden Ferdeline: Chair - Thomas Rickert
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Paul
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
>>     If this message has been received in error, please delete it
>>     without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended
>>     to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
>>     message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice
>>     contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot
>>     be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under
>>     applicable tax laws and regulations.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Epdp-dt mailing list
>>     Epdp-dt at icann.org <mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180620/2f4a2c63/attachment.htm>