[NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity

Wed Jan 10 03:03:04 EET 2018

Hi Ayden,

regarding the changes, it is really depending on the input we get during
the consultation. there were few suggestions from few members. I am not
going to assume that people are happy with the recommendations but I guess
they didn't have something specific in mind as a recommendation. if PC
members have some suggestions in term of change regarding the report
recommendations, I think we accommodate that.

Best,

Rafik

2018-01-10 9:08 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Yes, I think it is better to submit something than nothing at all.
>
> However, I also think - and I am speaking generally here, and not
> specifically about this diversity comment - that we need to be clearer with
> what changes we want to see reflected in the final report. I find we often
> use vague language, because yes more community consultation is always
> required, but don't go into specifics. We shouldn't always be about the
> process; sometimes someone else can make that argument, which is important,
> and we should be more forceful in what changes we want to see. Just a
> thought...
>
> One day as a PC I would like to see us discuss campaign objectives for the
> year ahead. Perhaps we need to try taking a leaf out of the Council's book
> and have a Strategic Planning Session of our own [on a smaller scale]?
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
> Local Time: 10 January 2018 12:15 AM
> UTC Time: 9 January 2018 23:15
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> I believe we can finalize the draft. it was shared for weeks for
> consultation but we didn't get enough input.
> as co-rapporteur of that subgroup, I really hope that my own group submits
> a comment. I believe that the group could do more but it was hard to find
> consensus in some areas. my conclusion was at the end that we need to get
> some foundations that can be used later and not risk to have nothing. with
> regard to the summary, I think the subgroup will analyze the comments and
> not waiting for it if we don't have that many responses, based on other
> subgroups experience.
>
> with regard to diversity skills, I am neutral. it was discussed several
> times in the subgroup and was something advocated by SSAC representative
> which explained that SSAC usually looks for diversity of background (for
> example to not end up with only DNS operators). there was the argument that
> can be used to dismiss candidates in nomcom for example. we can suggest
> text to clarify that element so it can provide guidance during
> implementation.
>
> I think the current list is acceptable. to be honest, I am not sure to
> which extent we can add more and be more granular.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2018-01-10 7:52 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>
>> Firstly, thanks to all who were involved in drafting this comment.
>>
>> I have now done a very heavy edit of the Google Doc, so if you have
>> already reviewed it, please can you consider reviewing it again, as I have
>> made many changes.
>>
>> That said, I don't think this comment is ready for submission just yet.
>> When I look over the comment I think, what is it that we have suggested
>> here that we would like to see in the staff summary of comments received?
>> I'm not sure. I don't think our ASK is very clear.
>>
>> I have some issues with the elements of diversity which the subgroup
>> identified, but as I was not involved in their work, I don't have the
>> background to know how they were determined. I have serious concerns around
>> "diverse skills" being an element of diversity. The definition (pasted
>> below my signature) inspires no confidence that it is not going to be an
>> instrument manipulated to maintain the status quo. I think it's both hard
>> to measure and arguably applicable to anyone. The edits from Renata in the
>> Google Doc hint that maybe the seven diversity elements are not
>> sufficiently exhaustive, and I think that's true, but we seem to have been
>> okay with all of the elements that were identified, and I'm wondering if
>> that is the case.
>>
>> — Ayden
>>
>> Diverse Skills: Diversity in skills contributes to the quality of ICANN
>> policy formulation, decision-making and outreach. It is important to
>> highlight and advocate the advantages of individuals bringing different and
>> diverse skills sets into ICANN's many activities. All activities and groups
>> within ICANN will benefit from having a diverse range of skills available.
>> Outcomes formulated from diverse skills and knowledge will have a higher
>> probability of being accepted by a diverse community. Increased diversity
>> would help expand the diversity of skills within ICANN. Thus, achieving
>> diversity in skills should not be seen as a choice between skills and
>> diversity which excludes participation, but rather one which values many
>> skills sets and facilitates inclusion and broad participation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Reviewing NCSG comment on diversity
>> Local Time: 8 January 2018 2:40 PM
>> UTC Time: 8 January 2018 13:40
>> From: farellfolly at gmail.com
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> At glance, it is seems ok to me. I will read again for proof reading.
>>
>> Le lun. 8 janv. 2018 à 07:42, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> as you know we have several public comments draft to endorse in coming
>>> days.
>>> the draft on CCWG recommendation on diversity was put for consultation
>>> for weeks and received some comments.
>>>
>>> you can find the draft here https://docs.google.com/d
>>> ocument/d/1m4NHYQj9uOzS5qMU0z6ZdNhqJa7BRPOuHxJuObpewds/edit# . I made
>>> some suggestions and put comments myself there.
>>> We need to clean-up the draft and prepare for review and endorsement
>>> soon within this week. comments and proof-reading would be helpful.
>>>
>>> the deadline for submission is the 14th Jan. our internal deadline for
>>> endorsement should be the 13th Jan.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> @__f_f__
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180110/ed001ec8/attachment.htm>