Dear all, I want to start by thanking David for his comments. I also want to join David and call members to comment on the second action item, because it will help us determine the agenda for incoming calls and start getting prepared. Regarding the first item, we wanted to wait until Sunday to avoid any confusion before creating clean copies for the survey. Below, you can find the links to clean copies with certain additions like the introductory paragraph regarding the applicability, hence the flexibility of the survey. Once more, they are open for your comments if you have any please note that they will be closed for comments on Wednesday, 26th of April 23:59UTC and then they will go through several processes like language services. 1. Diversity Survey v.1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/12aVN8kmoHB-_qfJV-oH1pzY24dxgW6k4UBsdrF7_...> 2. Diversity Perceptions Survey v.1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfUF_IVJdfnXusvAV85FTJ_2QU9VbuGNlIUFtDsx...> Best regards, Alp -- Alperen Eken Policy Development Support Senior Analyst Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com> Date: 19 April 2023 Wednesday 21:40 To: Alperen Eken <alperen.eken@icann.org>, WS2 CCG <ws2-ccg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: ACTION and Post Meeting Information Thank you, Alp. I was away last week and unfortunately missed that meeting. Nonetheless, I hope these comments are helpful. With respect to the First Action Item: On the diversity survey, I believe it sounds right. But I also find it would be helpful to read a ‘clean’ copy without all the google doc markups. On the diversity perceptions survey, I appreciate the direction it is taking – and tend to agree with Alfredo’s comments on relevance of stakeholder group in #1, especially in light of the ‘Other’ category where such concerns could be written-in if truly an issue. I have one comment with regard to the perception survey. I like the fact that each section is introduced by these words: “Types of potential questions,” thus allowing for context editing. But the survey itself might have an introductory paragraph underscoring its flexibility and possible partial inapplicability to some very few circumstances. A possible example of such a circumstance is one like the Registries Stakeholder Group. (I am speaking personally here, and definitely not speaking for either the RySG or for my employer, Verisign). It is a sophisticated working group with some demand for inside-industry knowledge, and thus less likely to have a certain age group - very young, recently employed staff members, although exceptions do occur. While there may only be a very few such circumstances, it might be worth underscoring this flexibility. With respect to the Second Action Item: The four options for next focus seem directed at specific constituencies (options a, b, and some of d) or deal with the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. I am unsure where community coordination figures into these, and so am interested to hear the views of colleagues in this group. I will be happy to help with whichever we choose. Best regards, David David McAuley Policy Director Verisign, Inc. From: ws2-ccg <ws2-ccg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alperen Eken Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 5:27 PM To: WS2 CCG <ws2-ccg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ws2-ccg] ACTION and Post Meeting Information Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, Thank you for participating in the meeting on April 13th, 2023. You can find the wiki page on this link where meeting recordings and other details are available. There are two major action items for the group: 1. Surveys: During the call, it was agreed that we will not discuss the surveys live in meetings anymore since the group has already spent a good amount of time on them. To finalize the survey discussions, members have until Sunday, April 23rd, 2023, at 23:59 UTC to make their final comments. Below are the links to both surveys. * Diversity Survey [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1X3WybTMu6ShXn...> * Diversity Perceptions Survey [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/18e4iLYeWkMO7Z...> 2. Choosing the Next Step: As you know, the CCG was created to work on several recommendations directed to the ICANN community that can benefit from coordination among different groups. To date, the group has worked on Recommendations 1.1, 1.2, and 1.6. For the next steps, starting from our May meeting, we would love to hear your feedback and get prepared for it. Please find four options below, select one, and state why we should continue in that direction. * Recommendation 1.7: "ICANN staff should support SO/AC/Groups in developing and publishing a process for dealing with diversity-related complaints and issues." Staff believes that continuing with a diversity recommendation would be a natural step forward. * Recommendation 2.3: Standalone Recommendations for Empowered Community. These recommendations are directed to ALAC, GAC, ASO, ccNSO, and GNSO only. It should also be noted that implementation for 2.1 and 2.2 for these groups are not fully completed either. * Recommendation 3.1: Community implementation of Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. * General Discussion of Other Community-Directed Recommendations: As stated above, CCG was founded to create a coordination mechanism in ICANN Community for the WS2 Recommendations. If you believe that your group, or ICANN Community in general, can benefit from community coordination on any of the community-directed recommendations (WS2 Rec. 1, 2, 3, and 6), please suggest a specific recommendation/sub-recommendation. Best regards, Alp Eken (on behalf of the ICANN org team supporting the CCG)