July 2017 - Ws2-diversity - lists.icann.org

Caption notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #28 | 28 July 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

Hello all, The raw caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #28 - 28 July 2017 are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/dXDwAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D30798.3A055DD0] Action Items: * Drafting Group – Produce a clean version of the document in the next 48 hours * BT – Annotate the recommendations vs implementability within 48 hours of receiving the clean version. Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089077/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089077/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * (none) Documents Presented: * WS2 DIVERSITY REPORT – Draft V3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089077/WS2%20DIVERSITY%2…>

2 1

FEEDBACK on DIVERSITY FROM CCWG-A WS2 F2F MEETING AT ICANN58
by Julie Hammer Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

Hi Everyone, In the interests of updating our Diversity Questionnaire as soon as possible, I have been through the recording of the session on Friday 10th March and made the following notes. Please let me know if you do not think I have accurately captured the feedback provided during the Plenary. 1. The introduction to the Questionnaire should make it more explicit that the list of Diversity elements stated is not exhaustive. 2. The term “SO/AC/group” should be clarified and it should be stated more specifically who are the target groups for this Questionnaire. 3. In the list of diversity elements, “Skills” should remain but should be listed as “Diversity of Skills” to avoid confusion. 4. In the list of diversity elements, “Physical Ability” is ambiguous and should be listed as “Disability”. 5. In Q4, the concept of being "proportionally represented within your SO/AC/group and its leadership” is neither clear nor necessarily useful. “Members" of a group/constituency may or may not participate, and of those who do participate, it is the ones who are actively engaged that are most likely to be those who are appointed to leadership positions. This question could create a great deal of confusion. 6. Q1-3 are asking for current information about diversity; Q4-6 are more aspirational. They are asking about ways to promote diversity. The questions should be amended as follows: - Q4 should focus on asking about ways to promote diversity in membership and leadership - Q5 should ask about educational or informational initiative to promote diversity awareness - Q6 should focus on asking about policies/practices which promote diversity I would also like to add one further suggestion of my own. In our original list of questions, we had one which asked "Does your SO/AC/group have any formal policies and procedures relating to diversity? If so, please provide details of these.” as well as "Does your SO/AC/group have any informal practices relating to diversity? If so, please provide details of these.” We seem to have retained the latter question but not the former. I do think it would be useful to ask about both formal and informal, but I am conscious that we don’t want to increase the number of questions so I have merged both of these aspects in the new Q6. Taking the above feedback into account, I have attempted to incorporate all these points into an updated Questionnaire which is attached for your review. I realise that the Diversity Sub-Group has not necessarily collectively agreed with all these recommendations, but if any of the suggestions we received are not agreed, then we can change the Questionnaire accordingly. I have not used “track changes” as I felt the list above adequately details the changes that have been made. Cheers, Julie

5 6

CEO Action for diversity and inclusion - AA
by Renata Aquino Ribeiro July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Hi Came across this link by chance https://www.ceoaction.com/ American Airlines CEO Commitment to Action on Diversity and Inclusion It's a catalogue of several companies actions towards diversity One can search through the initiatives Some initiatives are detailed in terms of procedures and achievements (although I did not see any numbers as metrics) Best, Renata

2 1

Apologies
by Rafael Lito Ibarra July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Hello I apologize for not being able to attend our coming meeting, since I will be traveling at the same time. Regards, -- Rafael (Lito) Ibarra Twitter: litoibarra Skype: lito.ibarra El Salvador (SV) Tel. (503) 2223-5016

4 3

meeting tomorrow and consolidated updates
by Renata Aquino Ribeiro July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Dear all Given the latest updates on answers to the questionnaire, we would likely have a broader picture than the consolidated updates. Thanks for any light on this. Best, Renata

3 4

ICANN Board response to the Diversity Questionnaire for Work Stream 2
by Nathalie Vergnolle July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

All – Attached is the ICANN Board response to the CCWG Diversity Questionnaire for Workstream 2. This has been posted to the wiki here <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Diversity+Questionnaire> . Due to the ICANN59 pre-rush it did not get emailed out to the list. Apologies. Thank you.

1 0

ICANN organization’s response to the Diversity Questionnaire for Work Stream 2.
by MSSI Secretariat July 25, 2017

July 25, 2017

Hi All – Attached is the ICANN Organization response to the CCWG Diversity Questionnaire for Workstream 2. This was posted to the wiki here<https://community.icann.org/x/ANnRAw> back in June but due to the ICANN59 pre-rush did not get emailed out to the list. Apologies. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image001.png@01D3053B.924E4A10]

1 0

Questions the meeting tomorrow
by Renata Aquino Ribeiro July 22, 2017

July 22, 2017

Hello As the inputs from SO/ACs have been incorporated on the draft report, I've made a few comments and would like to advance them here so as it is clearer the discussion on them tomorrow. Draft report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvqOdsuAxpbn-W4sw5C7QQeh0IJu6MjSNbZdcC9… Inputs https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1knHluhdwkxYvD8yfD4y1Gtgt-Ejd8AR8sqK… Questions Item 12.5 on - “[Age diversity/youth] limited to the level of representation” My comment was that I found this expression confusing. Does this means that no members were found to be from distinct age diversity (only members from 40yo on exist…)… The expression “limited to the level of representation” continues on in other items. So maybe it would be clearer something like “diversity of this element is still incipient” or “can be improved”… Item 12.7 – Skills diversity as 1st priority by the board and absent from any other input by SO/ACs. This contrast is a bit surprising. Perhaps deserves some discussion on what “skills” is as seen by board, maybe ask to send a follow up explanation. In 12.9 the additional elements of diversity could probably be what the SO/ACs understand as skills or characteristics of a diverse leadership. Recommendations section Added a recommendation 10 Create specific programs to address priority gaps or elements which are lacking in the diverse composition of an SO/AC (example: If an SO/AC only has no/little youth members, to create an specific initiative to address the gap) Main concern/impression from general reading of inputs There is willingnes to create diversity in the ICANN community but initiatives are comments on the importance of them do not really appear to convince. It could be interpreted that the community feels obligated to strive for diversity but it is not yet committed. Hence, the need to see as well what is mainly lacking as elements of diversity and address it in priority order. Best, Renata

2 2

Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity in leadership - GNSO responses
by Pam Little July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall seeing a response to the questionnaire from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). With regard to Renata's and Rafik's comments, I would add that RySG and the RrSG (Registrars Stakeholder Group) each have 3 seats on the GNSO Council and the respective RySG and RrSG Charters mandate that each of their three GNSO Council representatives should come from separate geographic region. Yet, in the case of the RrSG, two of its GNSO representatives are from NA and one from EU. And there are no diversity requirements (such as geographic, language or cultural diversity referenced in the ICANN bylaws) for other leadership roles within the RySG or RrSG. I would also point out some of the findings in the Afnic study last year. " See https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Dossiers_pour_actualites/2016_Icann_D…: "4.1.2. Africa, Latin America and Asia are under-represented Another striking element of this chart is the very low presence of African Region representatives: only21 of the 190 “leaders”. The Latin American region is slightly above with 28 representatives. gNSO and NomCom have only one African representative and some groups even have no Africanpresence at all such as SSAC and RSSAC. The latter also has no Latin American representative. As a reference, Africa has more than 1,1 billion inhabitants, and Latin America around 650 millioninhabitants. Indeed a complementary approach would be to compare with data on regular Internet users. On thismeasure Asia will be the most underrepresented. Indeed, one of the most glaring absences in ICANN, relative to prominence in the Internet world, is China and India, the two largest countries by Internet users." (my emphasis)As I mentioned in my earlier email, one of the recommendations (Rec 33) from the recent GNSO Review explicitly refers to cultural diversity. So I am curious to know whether this CCWG WS2 Diversity Sub-group will develop a definition for "cultural diversity" in our report or recommendations. If not, who will be tasked to come up with such definition for the implementation of Rec 33 of the GNSO Review WG?Rec 33: That Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the Nominating Committee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to the GNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, gender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value 4.Comment by ICANN staff supporting GNSO Review WG:The GNSO Review WG will be continuing its discussion on Recommendation 33,... I would think that the WG would seek consistency in its approach concerning references to “cultural diversity,” but as the implementation charters have not been finalized for these recommendations I cannot speak to what the WG will determine, although I do know that at least for 33 they are awaiting the results of the responses to the questionnaire. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>Time:2017 Jul 21 (Fri) 13:26To:Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino(a)gmail.com>Cc:ws2-diversity <ws2-diversity(a)icann.org>Subject:Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity in leadership - GNSO responses Hi Renata, the response was from GNSO Council and details about diversity at the groups level were left to stakeholder groups and constituencies like registrars stakeholder group and NCSG to respond to. The council is formed by representatives appointed by the stakeholders/constituencies in GNSO through their internal mechanisms like elections. by leadership do you mean the chair and vice-chairs (2) in GNSO Council? only the chair is elected by the council while the vice-chairs are appointed by each house of GNSO i.e. contracted party and non-contracted party. Best, Rafik 2017-07-21 11:25 GMT+09:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino(a)gmail.com>: Hi I am also confused as to why the GNSO responses were an explanation of how it is structured.It would be interesting indeed to understand provisions GNSO has for diversity in its leadership or any other aspect.I wonder if this is a case to follow up w/ GNSO to get more information. I do understand, though, since all components of GNSO have sent in their information, we may be going around in circles. Another option out would be to issue a recommendation to consider a balance between diversity in appointments and composition of a group or leadership team. Best, Renata On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Pam Little <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com> wrote: Hi Malcolm, Thank you for your feedback and questions. My responses are related to the GNSO only, as I am not familiar with other structures. My answer to the first part of your question #1 is a clear No. I would refer you to these APAC Space Comments on GNSO Review Draft Report. I was the author of those comments and I would reiterate the concern or "the warning by the ICC report commissioned by theATRT 2 that the GNSO risks global legitimacy when it does not include viewpoints from Africa,Asia/Pacific and the Latin American/Caribbean/South American regions." As to the second part of question #1 "whether a new structural reform of ICANN is called for at this time", to me, this might be beyond the scope of this group. I am also not sure if a new structure is the answer to improving diversity. I should also note that that the GNSO and ICANN Baord's responses to the GNSO Review missed the mark by omitting what I see as the most important recommendation #32 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2016-06-25-en#2.e and below) "Resolved (2016.06.25.13), taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32)." Recommendation 32: That ICANN define “cultural diversity” and that relevant metrics (encompassing geographic, gender, age group and cultural, possibly by using birth language) be monitored and publi shed. Recommendation 32 was rejected on the grounds that it was too broad. Yet, Recommendation 36 explicitly refers to "cultural diversity". I raised this with ICANN staff during ICANN59 meeting but received a somehow convoluted answer. Recommendation 36: That Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the NominatingCommittee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to theGNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, g ender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value.I do find it odd that GNSO's response to this group's questionnaire did not address any questions. Rather, it was an overview of the GNSO Council structure and PDP WG. ~~With regard to your question #2, I think diversity has to start from the bottom-up. In other words, from the composition of working groups, stakeholder groups and constitiencies upwards. I would refer you to the stats within the contracted party house of the GNSO, RySG and RrSG. I hope the facts/numbers speak for themselves. RegionRySG membership 17 June 2017 %RrSG membership 14 July 2017 %NA3943%3534%EU3539%4543%AP1314%1716%LAC22%44%Africa11%33%Total90100%104100%RySG LeadershipRegionRrSG LeadershipRegionChairNAChairNAVice Chair, AdminNAVice Chair, TechnologiesEUVice Chair, PolicyEUSecretaryEUTreasurerNATreasurerEUNonCom RepNANonCom RepNA->EU (ICANN60)GNSO Council Seat 1AP*GNSO Council Seat 1NAGNSO Council Seat 2NAGNSO Council Seat 2EUGNSO Council Seat 3LACGNSO Council Seat 3NA* Australian living in USA Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------From:Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net>Time:2017 Jul 18 (Tue) 18:04To:PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little(a)alibaba-inc.com>;Subject:Re: [Ext] Re: Diversity Subgroup Meeting #26 | 13:00 UTC | Thursday, 13 July 2017 On 18/07/2017 05:44, Pam Little wrote: > I would be very interested to know the views of the ICANN Ombudsman or > participants of this group. Do you think it is representative or > inclusive of the global Internet or DNS community? They are each tasked with representing the SOACs that appointed them. So the question really falls into two parts: i) do you think the ASO, ccNSO, gNSO, ALAC and GAC represents the global Internet community (at least in relation to ICANN), or is new structural reform of ICANN called for at this time? ii) do you think that the SOACs should be free to choose who they wish to represent them, or should their choice be restricted to reduce the number of white and male representatives chosen? Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

2 1

Caption notes, recordings and transcript for Diversity Subgroup Meeting #27 | 21 July 2017
by MSSI Secretariat July 21, 2017

July 21, 2017

Hello all, The raw caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Diversity Subgroup Meeting #27 – 21 July 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/b3DwAw A copy of the notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D30206.3B7A5A90] Action Items: * (none) Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089071/Diversity_21%20Ju…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089071/Diversity_21%20Ju…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * Group review the Google doc, especially the recommendations section, and add comments and edits to those recommendations that need more specificity and also engage on list for points of discussion. Documents Presented: * WS2 DIVERSITY REPORT – Draft V3<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66089071/WS2%20DIVERSITY%2…> * (Google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvqOdsuAxpbn-W4sw5C7QQeh0IJu6MjSNbZdcC9…>) * Consolidated Comments to Diversity Questionnaire (Google Doc)<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1knHluhdwkxYvD8yfD4y1Gtgt-Ejd8AR8sqK…>

1 0