Meeting with CEO

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Thank you Amr, for taking time to elaborate on the issue of diversity at
the 'bottom' of the policy development model used at ICANN . I agree there
needs to be more conscious effort by the (less present) community
post-outreach, to contribute to policy development from their regional
perspective and how they are impacted.

Sometimes, in an effort to make the work here look attractive to new
recruits, we make them think the reward for volunteering/contribution in
the community are leadership positions and air tickets, and so a lot of
people come in with such goals and expectations rather than the
understanding that the true reward is in the impact we make to our local
communities by representing their challenges in policy discussions and
having these considered in the final policy decisions.

Cheers,
Tomslin
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/

On Sat., 18 Aug. 2018, 05:10 Amr Elsadr, <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi Farell,
>
> Thanks for the response. First to answer the questions you asked; no I
> will not be attending the meeting with the CEO, and my objective in raising
> this is largely due to what I perceive to be significant interest in the
> topic (considering how many have chimed in with their support).
>
> Generally speaking, I would prefer that when we respond to our SG Chair’s
> request for input on what topics we would like raised with the CEO, that we
> support her as much as we can by being as specific as we can be. I believe
> this would assist her in holding a more constructive dialogue with Goran.
> One of the ways to do this would be to try to predict what questions Goran
> might have in response to our concerns, and that Farzi will have as many
> specific responses as possible.
>
> Also…, no…, I haven’t been following discussions on this list over the
> past year as closely as I would have liked to. I’ve only just rejoined NCSG
> about a month ago, so have obviously missed out on the internal discussions
> that have taken place. I do apologize for not being more well informed on
> previous discussions, but would like to now share my own perspective.
>
> I found some, but not all of the NCSG input you mentioned posted on this
> page: https://community.icann.org/x/FIbDAQ. The diversity report you
> linked to (which is btw an AFNIC report, not an official ICANN report)
> seems interesting at first glance. I need to go through it more closely,
> but I do have some preliminary thoughts on it.
>
> The report uses data (that is publicly available) gathered regarding the
> composition of the different ICANN leadership bodies, such as the Councils
> of the GNSO and ccNSO, as well as ALAC (not to be confused with At-Large or
> At-Large Structures), the ICANN Board, NomCom, etc…
>
> So the report isn’t actually reflective of diversity at ICANN, but rather
> geographic diversity of those in leadership positions. I am personally of
> the opinion that diversity within ICANN is a much more serious matter than
> diversity within leadership positions at ICANN. At ICANN, and within the
> GNSO, we pride ourselves (or we try to) on bottom-up multistakeholder
> consensus building. The bottom really does matter more than the top.
>
> By that rationale, I find the lack of diversity of active participants in
> GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Groups (WGs) to be more
> alarming than the diversity reflected in Councils or Advisory Committees.
> Farell…, you yourself participated in the GNSO Next-Generation Registration
> Directory Services (RDS) PDP WG, as did Kris Seeburn, who is also an NCSG
> member. What was your view on geographic diversity in active participation
> on that PDP? Not very good in my opinion. There are other examples that are
> even more bleak. How many from Africa (as an example) actively participated
> in the GNSO new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, where issues important
> to underserved regions were being discussed? An example of these issues
> would be support to applicants of new gTLDs from those same regions we are
> saying are not well represented. As you well know, these PDP WGs are where
> the actual policies are being developed. It’s where the rules are being
> divined. It’s far more important to participate there, than at the top.
>
> Having said that, I actually find some of the figures in the AFNIC report
> you sent to be surprising. There seems to be more South American and
> Asia-Pacific representation on different SO Councils and Advisory
> Committees than I thought there would be. Africa seems to lag in that
> regard, but yes…, not surprisingly, North America and Europe easily
> dominate. (See the chart under section 4.1 of the AFNIC report)
>
> However, I also suspect that if we had more diverse participating where
> the actual work is taking place, this would also be reflected in leadership
> positions. Those who have gained this experience will also be in a far
> better position to actively participate in leadership than those who
> haven’t. Participation in WGs is where capacities are truly built, not by
> programs such as the Fellowship Program. A far deeper understanding of the
> policies at ICANN, and the processes that govern their development is
> gained by active participation. Folks participating in PDP WGs can do a lot
> more to represent their views, their national or regional perspectives, and
> have these views be translated into binding policy decisions, than they can
> by being elected to the GNSO Council by a stakeholder group or
> constituency, or by being appointed by the NomCom. I’m not saying these
> elections and appointments are meaningless, but there is so much more that
> needs to be done elsewhere, and I don’t believe the CEO has anything to do
> with it.
>
> If our members really are interested in improving diversity of views and
> participation, then please roll up your sleeves, and get into the trenches.
> It’s slow, it’s difficult and it’s messy, but it’s where the real action
> is. And more often than not, you’ll find somebody whose been stuck there in
> those trenches for a while, and is willing to help out.
>
> Apologies about the rant, and the change in topic, but you asked. ;-)
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Farell FOLLY <farell at BENIN2POINT0.ORG> wrote:
>
> Dear Amr,
>
> I am NOT sure about the objective of your question regarding why people
> are asking about issues related to diversity. For the sake of my own
> understanding, I would like to know whether you are attending the meeting
> with CEO alongside Farzaneh.
>
> I would like to elaborate on the issue since I am part of those who
> tackled it. I don’t know if you followed our discussions within this
> mailing list for the last year…. I think the question was raised many times
> and even some public comments pointed it out elegantly (for instance our
> comments on the CCWG-Accountability WS2 draft report, also during the
> diversity questionnaire, fellowship programme, etc. just to name a few).
>
> An official ICANN’s report
> <https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Dossiers_pour_actualites/2016_Icann_Diversity_Data.pdf> (in
> 2016) clearly showed the Org’s figures regarding diversity and many
> recommendations have made to improve those figures. Therefore, it seems legitimate
> to me to take any opportunity to tackle this issue. And as you have a
> concrete exemple regarding visas for meetings, there are many others things
> to tackle (maybe not during a single meeting with the CEO, but critical to
> address by us as noncommercial users.).  Recently we had a public comment
> on an SSAC review and diversity of the membership was one of the issue that
> was addressed by us as NCSG. Certainly, it does not make sense, at this
> stage, to ask such an operational question to a CEO but it worths knowing
> his vision/goals/achievements at a strategic level. Addressing one thing at
> a time will be helpful and will eradicate the issue on a long-term
>
>
> There are already bylaws and GNSO operating provisions that address
> diversity issues. Are those inadequate? If so, then why? How can they be
> improved?
>
>
> If the bylaws alone were sufficient, the ICANN diversity report would have
> shown only positive figures and drawn only positive conclusions, but it was
> not the case. That says it all. Concrete actions at a both strategic and
> ops levels are required and we have the duty to monitor them continuously
> and assess their effectiveness and efficiency.
>
>
> @__f_f__
>
> Best Regards
> ____________________________________
>
> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 14:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would very much like some elaboration on the diversity concern, so would
> be grateful for any elaborations that could be provided. What specific
> concerns do folks have regarding diversity, and are there any concrete
> solutions any of the many proponents for this topic would like to propose?
>
> There are already bylaws and GNSO operating provisions that address
> diversity issues. Are those inadequate? If so, then why? How can they be
> improved?
>
> The issue of improving the process to secure visas for ICANN meeting
> participants is a concrete example that I can support. Might be a good
> topic to bring up, but I’m trying to understand what the broader concerns
> might be, especially that there seem to be so many who believe that
> improvements to diversity is desirable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Aug 16, 2018, at 11:08 PM, MAURICIA ABDOL <ladymauriciaa12 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Farazaneh,
>
> I am interested in knowing how ICANN intends ensuring diversity is
> observed throughout the organisation especially at the key decision making
> tables.
>
> I am happy to elaborate if necessary.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Mauricia
>
>
> On 16 Aug 2018 10:36 pm, "Mamadou LO" <alfamamadou at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 Benjamin on broader participation regarding visas and venues.
> Cordially
>
>
>
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at GMAIL.COM>
> Date : 16/08/2018 17:27 (GMT+00:00)
> À : NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Objet : Re: Meeting with CEO
>
> Dear Farzenah,
> Awesome that you have another opportunity to interact with ICANN CEO, my
> topics of interest include the ones already expressed by Dororthy G and
> Wisdom  ie broader participation in ICANN and helping improve access to
> ICANN meetings especially when considering venues.
>
> He should shed more light on how far ICANN is willing to go in adopting
> open data .
>
> Regards,
> Benjamin
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 4:07 PM Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> Do you have references for the case law James?
>>
>> Stephanie
>> On 2018-08-15 13:18, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> I would disagree as would some case law.
>> Having been the subject of near interrogation over the same topic I speak
>> from experience.
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 19:10, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree. There is a strong public interest to tracking expenses of this
>> type. I don't consider the fact that a person has requested/received an
>> exemption to be particularly sensitive, given that there's no need to
>> publish any details about the specifics underlying that exemption (the
>> actual medical information).
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a legitimate concern, but it something that can be managed.
>>> Other organisations which publish similar data (government, grant issuing
>>> agencies) have ways of managing this, which ICANN might be able to learn
>>> from.
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 16:41, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The concern I know was raised previously is that it can be determined
>>> who has asked and received a medical exemption from the travel and flight
>>> policy hence may be considered for those people personal information.
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 16:19, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Claire,
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a balancing act, but with the exception of names, the travel
>>> report does not directly contain any personal information. It used to have
>>> the cost of a flight, for instance - but never the city of departure or any
>>> other identifying information. Much like we expect elected representatives
>>> in government to disclose their expenses, I think it is reasonable for
>>> those who are receiving financial support from ICANN to disclose the extent
>>> of this relationship by way of documents like the travel report.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 15:03, Claire Craig <claireccraig at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting Ayden. We really have to insist on balancing transparency
>>> and privacy otherwise, before we know it everything could be justified and
>>> private hence outside of the purview of the community.
>>> CCC
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 17:55, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Farzi,
>>>>
>>>> While we would certainly like to see ICANN act in a more privacy-minded
>>>> fashion, we would also like to see ICANN remain appropriately transparent
>>>> and accountable.
>>>>
>>>> It might be worth asking to see the Privacy Impact Assessment (if any)
>>>> that ICANN org conducted prior to redacting the travel reports of all
>>>> meaningful data. They are now useless, as the financial information has
>>>> been redacted, with ICANN org attributing this change to “privacy laws.”
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 23:49, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear members
>>>>
>>>> I will have a meeting with the CEO on Friday the 17th. The issues that
>>>> I have in mind to discuss with him are:
>>>>
>>>> Unified  Access Model and NCSG perspective. (we had some preliminary
>>>> discussions on the list about it, hopefully, we will have some common
>>>> positions which I can relay on Friday.)
>>>>
>>>> Cross Community Sessions and dominance of the organizer
>>>>
>>>> The need to have a more privacy-minded ICANN org and community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is quite a full agenda and he would want to also talk about
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> Please comment on the current issues by tomorrow and let me know if you
>>>> have any other topic you would like to be discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180823/80c9b67d/attachment.htm>