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@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 <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00007.html>. I was the author of those comments and I would reiterate the concern or "the warning by the ICC report commissioned by the ATRT 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.
Region RySG membership 17 June 2017 % RrSG membership 14 July 2017 % NA 39 43% 35 34% EU 35 39% 45 43% AP 13 14% 17 16% LAC 2 2% 4 4% Africa 1 1% 3 3% Total 90 100% 104 100% RySG Leadership Region RrSG Leadership Region Chair NA Chair NA Vice Chair, Admin NA Vice Chair, Technologies EU Vice Chair, Policy EU Secretary EU Treasurer NA Treasurer EU NonCom Rep NA NonCom Rep NA->EU (ICANN60) GNSO Council Seat 1 AP* GNSO Council Seat 1 NA GNSO Council Seat 2 NA GNSO Council Seat 2 EU GNSO Council Seat 3 LAC GNSO Council Seat 3 ? * Australian living in USA
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> Time:2017 Jul 18 (Tue) 18:04 To:PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little@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 <+44%2020%207645%203523> 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
