[NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues

Tropina, Tatiana t.tropina at mpicc.de
Wed Jun 20 15:25:00 EEST 2018 

Agree with Rafik,
I would object SG representation in chairmanship for two reasons:
1) it immediately sends the (wrong) message “you don’t have to be neutral as a co-chair”
2) one chair and one vice-chair is easier to manage in terms of neutrality. If they are not neutral there are enough of balancing forces to point this out and fix this. 
We will have enough representation of different interests due to the group composition from even distribution of reps from SGs. Why do we have to bring this on the chairs level is something I am not convinced of. Or rather convinced otherwise. 
Cheers,
Tanya 
________________________________________
From: NCSG-PC [ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is] on behalf of Rafik Dammak [rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
Sent: 20 June 2018 14:11
To: Kathy Kleiman
Cc: ncsg-pc
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] ePDP DT / Leadership Issues

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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


  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<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<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<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<mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list