[NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues

Wed Jun 20 15:11:51 EEST 2018

Hi.

I would object. It looks like a zero -sum game strategy. Instead of working
toward neutrality, we will try to get co-chairs or vice-chairs to keep each
one in check. It doesn't look a good way to build team or encouraging for
everyone to commit.

Best,

Rafik

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 8:53 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Ayden, fair enough :-)
>
> But I think the RDS did not work for other reasons - namely, the ongoing
> refusal of certain members to believe the GDPR was real. That was not the
> job of the Chair/Vice-Chair. In that case, I think it was critical that
> Michele and David were alongside Chuck and Susan Kawaguchi in the RDS
> endeavor. Can you imagine if they had not been?
>
> When we needed something, we went to David and Michele... I think the
> principle still holds. I don't see neutrality in anyone's formula on this
> one. Absent that, balance is key (everything often weighs on it). I think
> you would be a great vice-chair, for example :-)!
>
> Best, K
>
> On 6/20/2018 7:48 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> The problem is that the RDS PDP WG crashed and therefore did not work :-(
>
> We have discussed trying something new at the Council level and, given how
> small the EPDP is likely to be, I think others are right to say we should
> keep the leadership to 1 neutral chair (hard to find we realise) and
> possibly 1 vice chair or a co-chair. I really don’t see the point in having
> a larger leadership team. We’ll only have 3 people on the EPDP, why do we
> want one to have to be neutral?
>
> I am not set on anything yet and can be persuaded otherwise, but above is
> my current train of thought. Thanks
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 13:43, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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> on behalf of "McGrady,
>> Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 16:14
>> *To: *GNSO Council List <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
>>
>>
>>
>>    1.  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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://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/20180620/076a4247/attachment.htm>