Draft doc DIversity (was Re: Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3 (10 July)

July 12, 2015


      Hello
ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to
address diversity issue.
Please find attached a first draft document about diversity.
And the link to a Google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PN0uI8JWpfVwabxoiwF7QqtLP4aiPSK_2zaoQlJm
72I/edit

The next call is on the 13th.
I will be on my flight from Lima to Paris or just landing and needing to
catch a train. Difficult to join.
See you soon in Paris.
All the best
Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com>

De :  <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of
Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org>
Date :  vendredi 10 juillet 2015 07:49
À :  "accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Cc :  "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org>
Objet :  [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3
(10 July)
...
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP3 Meeting #3  10 July will be
available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783270
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Kim
ACTION Items
ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer.
ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC
accountability.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules.
ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to
create a google doc.
ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on
staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task.
ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address
diversity issue.
Notes
Review of Open Action Items
All action items are complete. More volunteers are needed for staff
accountability group.
ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer.
SO/AC Accountability Draft Proposal
It explains scope of our work. It closes by suggesting 4 actions that should
be taken into account when the CCWG builds its next proposal:
- Amend current draft and include commitment to have each SO/AC perform a
complete review of existing mechanisms as part of WS2 to be implemented after
transition;
- Include evaluation of proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" as part of
WS2;
3 Establish a commitment to carry a detailed working plan on enhancing
SO/Accountability as part of WS2;
4 Clarify that IRP should be applicable to SO/AC activities.
Feedback: 
- Would there also be a review - in terms of documentation - of SO/AC rules
and procedures? Would that be part of the review that will be undertaken?
Mathieu circulated something that had provisions about SO/ACs - why was that
not included?
--> Intent is to have this draft refined.
ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC
accountability.
--> Staff included this set of documents in the reading list.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules.
- There are nested regulations that will show rules are in place but it won't
necessarily show that rules are being followed or that we are accountable to
community. To what extent do we want to claim that SO/Acs embody a real subset
that maps to community outside?
---> Most of references that we find in ATRT recommendations are nested rules
that should apply to staff. We need to be clearer as to which rules and how
they are applicable to each SO/AC.
- We all have a consistent set of rules. At the moment, because of
relationship of SO/ACs, there is not only broader accountability, there is
also a cycle of Board reviews. We have to include review cycle as part of it.
The effectiveness of review cycle depends on model we have.  IRP is currently
not applicable: we need more than a clarification: we need retesting of IRP.
Is there an escalation procedure at the moment to get to IRP i.e.
reconsideration etc? Is it appropriate for workload etc? Ombudmsan has done a
lot of work in arbitrary issues: is that an ingredient as well?
---> Avri's help on how to address questions and to build them into document
would be welcome. While ombudsman's role is to mediate between different
people, unsure how could interpret that his role as an accountability
mechanism. we would need to refine or enhance role with regards to this type
of mediation. 
- Another resource that could be added would be organizational reviews as they
touch on accountability of organization. For instance Westlake review of GNSO.
Similar reviews that will be conducted will be an essential part of the
picture. 
- Ombudsman is a large part of this. Although he does mediation, its formal
rule has to do with fairness and exercising rules fairly, evenly across
community. Ombudsman plays a large part of this.
ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to
create a google doc.
Staff Accountability Draft Proposal
The staff Accountatbility paper reflects comments made in the discussions that
were started. Some views were incorporated, wording was tweaked, initial
assessment was proposed. This might be incomplete: still need to go through
documents to see how staff could be accountable to SO/ACs. With regards to
AoC, all the AoC reviews include key commitments for ICANN, the organization.
We have nested regulations that while applicable to SO/ACs should be also
applicable to staff and do not have written commitments. We only a paragraph
9.e which refers directly to staff. No particular recommendation in ATRT work
refers to Board actions to be undertaken by staff. Articles were found within
Bylaws: while they established certain aspects of accountability, they don't
address concerns raised. Three proposed CCWG steps are:
1. Review current document so we can extend mechanisms that we are proposing
to staff work;
2. Include a work plan as part of WS2 that considers Code of conduct and
transparency criteria;
3. Establishment of regular independent audit to track progress.
Feedback: 
- Staff are very often the only one who know what's going on inside inside
operation of ICANN. They cannot report what's going on. ATRT has discussed
whistblowing and it is pending. It should be part of our accountability
package. 
---> We should think about adding this component to suggestions.
ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on
staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task.
Diversity 
- Sebastien's comment covers diversity with regards to different criteria:
gender balance, age, region, stakeholders etc. An email from Jan was
circulated on this issue which recommended to make exclusive commitments with
regards to diversity that would address this issue. WS2 could include specific
list of issues on diversity of SO/ACs.
Feedback: 
- A remark made in public forum with regards to diversity has to do with
accessibility to those with various disabilities. There is an accessibility
group in ALAC. Balancing diversity with other needs can sometimes create
unintended consequences.
---> Comments from AFNIC were also submitted: proposal to expand ATRT to
diversity review. It also suggests protecting from one region's influence.
- Hard to discuss diversity requirements. Unsure whether talking about 29
members. One could look at regional diversity. Is the group happy we would
limit diversity to a region - we will need to have an explicit decision of how
far we are addressing diversity at this stage.
---> So far, we have looked a geographic only but constructive to consider
other factors (language, age, etc). Our document should establish a fixed set
of criteria.
- There could be an endless cycle of diversity concerns that do not
substantically increase overal expertise. It would be very case by case.
Sometimes gender diversity would provide a grater enhancement of expertise
than geographic diversity.
---> We need balance.
- Specific to issue, diversity requirements created on fly.
- When we have various models and contracts, we push to meet all diversity in
that number. Hard coded requirements should be made different.  We get
concerns about geographic balance at the cost of volunteers willing to do
work. We should look at balance in human kind - we should try mechanisms to
bring that. They should be seen as important. We need to take it through
staged implementation role.
- We invariably end up suffering from diversity requirements. Getting
volunteers to do the work is where we severely struggle at ICANN. The largest
disability is not speaking English - we are never going to have the money from
translation/interpretation that the UN has.
- There is a group which is trying to systematically evolve policy culture of
ICANN to use metrics. We are doing that by building language into templates
that are used for issues report and chartering. In each and every case, it
looks at feasibility so that it becomes explicit aspiration, as opposed to
implicit. It is the duty of the group to ensure there are enough voices to be
heard. Anything that looks like quota is to increase overall implementation in
ICANN. We are not opposed to getting more diversity which will have effect of
greater involvement.
- There may be struggles to get volunteers but it is probably not purely a
function of getting people involved. ICANN room is not close to current
distribution. 
- Any discussion should talk about how to expand pool of outsiders for
outreach and engagement.
- We have cultures that do not work the way ICANN works. Culture is an
important aspect we cannot forget. Justifying accountability as impediments
might stop participation. We live in complex world.
ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address
diversity issue.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Sébastien Bachollet

Avri Doria

Sébastien Bachollet

tags

participants (2)