On 23/02/2017 12:37, avri doria wrote:
Is this really what you think?
Sounds like the accusation we hear in the US all the time these days.
It's certainly what I think of what you've said Avri. You've explicitly mentioned support in principle for "hard quotas", although you've stopped short of directly calling for that to be included in the report. Hard quotas for race and sex absolutely and unquestionably define certain people as ineligible because of their race or sex. You may find it uncomfortable for me to point this out, but that doesn't make it any less true. I'm less certain whether the group really stands behind your point of view, which is why I said what I said in the form of a question. I would greatly prefer that this report included a commitment to avoid discrimination on the grounds of race or sex (and not just to stop there). I would also wish that this report focused our attention on outreach to less represented regions. Both aspects would combine to fulfil an overarching principle that all should be welcome at ICANN, and that ICANN should take practical steps to assist those who would wish to participate, but find it less easy to do so. Since this report does not take that focus, I would like to know why. I would like to know whether it is because the group prefers to prioritise shifting group representation over assisting individual participation, and indeed over even-handed treatment for those individuals who do volunteer. If that is not the reason, I would like to know why else the two strands I mention have been omitted. 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