Dear Mathieu, thanks for the comment, I think that in the questionnaire we tried to be too prescriptive and give some freedom for the SO/AC to respond as much possible (in the same fashion that we tried to reduce the number of questions). if they have legal constraints such requirements in their charter or bylaws, I would expect that they will state that in their response. The first question will give them the opportunity to indicate what elements of diversity we listed they take in consideration and maybe indicate the priority. The second question allows them to add any element we may have missed but important to them. The third question covers how the SO/AC track diversity and measure it, indicating which mechanisms they are applying if any. I guess having diverse interpretations can help us in some way to understand how the different groups within ICANN perceive diversity and respond to it. Best, Rafik 2017-02-02 16:56 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear Colleagues,

I think the questionnaire is taking good shape. Maybe my comment is redundant, but I wonder whether the notions of "relevance" or "importance" of diversity dimensions will be clear for our questionnaire's target group.

Both notions can lead to very "diverse" interpretations, and I wonder whether we should be more precise ? Are we asking them if they have legal constraints, set targets for their groups, are tracking diversity levels ?

Best Mathieu

-----Message d'origine----- De : ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Renata Aquino Ribeiro Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57 À : ws2-diversity@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Hi all

Pls. find the latest version of diversity questionnaire according to observations from 31st jan meeting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKS cgSmw/edit

Best,

Renata _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

Dear Pam During discussions in previous calls, participants asked for a more streamlined questionnaire (short), so some questions were selected for deletion, including this one about rotating meeting times. The majority of the volunteers in the drafting team agreed. Best, Renata On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@zodiac-corp.com> wrote:

I agree with Mathieu on this one.

I think we are too late in the game for “open or value questions”. That’s why I suggested a more practical question earlier - “whether they rotate meeting times” but somehow the question seems to have been deleted.

Kind regards,

Pam

From: ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:11 PM To: Mathieu Weill Cc: ws2-diversity@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Dear Mathieu,

thanks for the comment,

I think that in the questionnaire we tried to be too prescriptive and give some freedom for the SO/AC to respond as much possible (in the same fashion that we tried to reduce the number of questions). if they have legal constraints such requirements in their charter or bylaws, I would expect that they will state that in their response.

The first question will give them the opportunity to indicate what elements of diversity we listed they take in consideration and maybe indicate the priority. The second question allows them to add any element we may have missed but important to them. The third question covers how the SO/AC track diversity and measure it, indicating which mechanisms they are applying if any.

I guess having diverse interpretations can help us in some way to understand how the different groups within ICANN perceive diversity and respond to it.

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-02 16:56 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear Colleagues,

I think the questionnaire is taking good shape. Maybe my comment is redundant, but I wonder whether the notions of "relevance" or "importance" of diversity dimensions will be clear for our questionnaire's target group.

Both notions can lead to very "diverse" interpretations, and I wonder whether we should be more precise ? Are we asking them if they have legal constraints, set targets for their groups, are tracking diversity levels ?

Best Mathieu

-----Message d'origine----- De : ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Renata Aquino Ribeiro Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57 À : ws2-diversity@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Hi all

Pls. find the latest version of diversity questionnaire according to observations from 31st jan meeting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKS cgSmw/edit

Best,

Renata _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

_______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

Hi Pam, to clarify about the calls timeslots. All CCWG subgroups can reserve among 3 available timeslots from Monday to Friday: 5:00UTC, 13:00UTC, 19:00UTC in order to ensure the rotation. 1 timeslot can be selected by 1 subgroup only. Those are the parameters within we operate. I also live in Asia and my timezone is UTC+9. Personally, 13:00UTC is more convenient for me since that doesn't clash with my work which has nothing to do with ICANN-related matters. I can sometimes attend a 19:00UTC call if it is on Friday but definitely not on other weekdays. I am really aware of the issues with regard to selected times for many ICANN working groups and raised that point in many times in GNSO. That is why we always ask people to comment on the mailing list and react, to not keep the discussion in confcalls only. Best, Rafik 2017-02-04 6:53 GMT+09:00 Pam Little <pam.little@zodiac-corp.com>:

Dear Renata,

Thank you for your explanation.

As someone who is based in Sydney Australia, I say with personal experience that over the last four years, most meetings I would like to or need to participate were held at awkward hours (ranging from midnight to 4am, local time). Those meeting times were often results of a poll among participants but for historic reasons, certain regions were (and still are) under-represented and polling tends to perpetuate the status quo.

That's why I considered rotation of meeting times essential for diversity but I respect the drafting team's decision.

Kind regards,

Pam Little

-----Original Message----- From: Renata Aquino Ribeiro [mailto:raquino@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 7:10 AM To: Pam Little Cc: Rafik Dammak; Mathieu Weill; ws2-diversity@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Dear Pam

During discussions in previous calls, participants asked for a more streamlined questionnaire (short), so some questions were selected for deletion, including this one about rotating meeting times. The majority of the volunteers in the drafting team agreed.

Best,

Renata

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Pam Little <pam.little@zodiac-corp.com> wrote:

...

I agree with Mathieu on this one.

I think we are too late in the game for “open or value questions”. That’s why I suggested a more practical question earlier - “whether they rotate meeting times” but somehow the question seems to have been deleted.

Kind regards,

Pam

From: ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:11 PM To: Mathieu Weill Cc: ws2-diversity@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Dear Mathieu,

thanks for the comment,

I think that in the questionnaire we tried to be too prescriptive and give some freedom for the SO/AC to respond as much possible (in the same fashion that we tried to reduce the number of questions). if they have legal constraints such requirements in their charter or bylaws, I would expect that they will state that in their response.

The first question will give them the opportunity to indicate what elements of diversity we listed they take in consideration and maybe indicate the priority. The second question allows them to add any element we may have missed but important to them. The third question covers how the SO/AC track diversity and measure it, indicating which mechanisms they are applying if any.

I guess having diverse interpretations can help us in some way to understand how the different groups within ICANN perceive diversity and respond to it.

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-02 16:56 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear Colleagues,

I think the questionnaire is taking good shape. Maybe my comment is redundant, but I wonder whether the notions of "relevance" or "importance" of diversity dimensions will be clear for our questionnaire's target group.

Both notions can lead to very "diverse" interpretations, and I wonder whether we should be more precise ? Are we asking them if they have legal constraints, set targets for their groups, are tracking diversity levels ?

Best Mathieu

-----Message d'origine----- De : ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Renata Aquino Ribeiro Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57 À : ws2-diversity@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Hi all

Pls. find the latest version of diversity questionnaire according to observations from 31st jan meeting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQ ULKS cgSmw/edit

Best,

Renata _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

_______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

Hi Mathieu, the plan agreed in the last call was to issue a consensus call (sorry for the delay) for few days to see if there is any objection to the final version and moving to work on the draft report. I understand that you are proposing here some edits for 2 questions. if we have a suggested wording for those amendments it will be really helpful. looking to hear from the subgroups participants if they agree with those changes. Best, Rafik 2017-02-03 5:17 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Rafik,

I understand the intent, and fully support the idea to leave some room to the So/ACs.

We may be able to accomplish both if we expand on the question by indicating that they can, for instance, indicate legal constraints, priorities, official policy criteria, etc. and for the second question clarifying they can add any other element they consider important ?

I'm really trying to avoid any ambiguity that would lead to extra delay in the submission of the responses. Experience for the So/AC accountability questionnaire indicates that response time take up to 2 month+.

Best

Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

Le 2 févr. 2017 à 09:11, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> a écrit :

Dear Mathieu,

thanks for the comment, I think that in the questionnaire we tried to be too prescriptive and give some freedom for the SO/AC to respond as much possible (in the same fashion that we tried to reduce the number of questions). if they have legal constraints such requirements in their charter or bylaws, I would expect that they will state that in their response.

The first question will give them the opportunity to indicate what elements of diversity we listed they take in consideration and maybe indicate the priority. The second question allows them to add any element we may have missed but important to them. The third question covers how the SO/AC track diversity and measure it, indicating which mechanisms they are applying if any.

I guess having diverse interpretations can help us in some way to understand how the different groups within ICANN perceive diversity and respond to it.

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-02 16:56 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

...

Dear Colleagues,

I think the questionnaire is taking good shape. Maybe my comment is redundant, but I wonder whether the notions of "relevance" or "importance" of diversity dimensions will be clear for our questionnaire's target group.

Both notions can lead to very "diverse" interpretations, and I wonder whether we should be more precise ? Are we asking them if they have legal constraints, set targets for their groups, are tracking diversity levels ?

Best Mathieu

-----Message d'origine----- De : ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Renata Aquino Ribeiro Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57 À : ws2-diversity@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

Hi all

Pls. find the latest version of diversity questionnaire according to observations from 31st jan meeting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GN DjfYRs3FwQULKS cgSmw/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKScg...>

Best,

Renata _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity _______________________________________________ Ws2-diversity mailing list Ws2-diversity@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity