[Ws2-diversity] Fwd: FEEDBACK on DIVERSITY FROM CCWG-A WS2 F2F MEETING AT ICANN58

[Julie Hammer]

Hi Everyone,

Well done, Bernie, Fiona and Rafik.  I agree that these recommendations should work and I also agree that proposed amendments to the circulated document are friendly ones.

With regard to the suggestion on Physical Ability/Disability, I thought I’d remind everyone what happened at the Plenary in Copenhagen on this topic - see email summary below.  We actually had Ability in the Questionnaire and the plenary asked us to change is back to Disability because it was ambiguous (but also said to be overly sensitive to “political correctness”).  Maybe it should remain as Disability or we may risk having the Plenary ask it to be changed again.

I think Cheryl’s comment on the Skills is correct but suggest that we use the term Diverse Skills, as we did in the Questionnaire.

Overall, my suggestion is that we stick with the list of elements that we used in the Diversity Questionnaire which was considered by the Plenary in Copenhagen, namely:

Geographic/regional representation
Language
Gender
Age
Physical Disability
Diverse Skills
Stakeholder group or constituency 

Cheers,  Julie

Begin forwarded message:

From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer at bigpond.com <mailto:julie.hammer at bigpond.com>>
Subject: [Ws2-diversity] FEEDBACK on DIVERSITY FROM CCWG-A WS2 F2F MEETING AT ICANN58
Date: 12 March 2017 at 3:12:16 PM AEST
To: ws2-diversity at icann.org <mailto:ws2-diversity at icann.org>
Cc: ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>

Hi Everyone,

In the interests of updating our Diversity Questionnaire as soon as possible, I have been through the recording of the session on Friday 10th March and made the following notes.  Please let me know if you do not think I have accurately captured the feedback provided during the Plenary.

1. The introduction to the Questionnaire should make it more explicit that the list of Diversity elements stated is not exhaustive.

2. The term “SO/AC/group” should be clarified and it should be stated more specifically who are the target groups for this Questionnaire.

3.  In the list of diversity elements, “Skills” should remain but should be listed as “Diversity of Skills” to avoid confusion.

4. In the list of diversity elements, “Physical Ability” is ambiguous and should be listed as “Disability”.

5. In Q4, the concept of being "proportionally represented within your SO/AC/group and its leadership” is neither clear nor necessarily useful. “Members" of a group/constituency may or may not participate, and of those who do participate, it is the ones who are actively engaged that are most likely to be those who are appointed to leadership positions. This question could create a great deal of confusion.

6. Q1-3 are asking for current information about diversity; Q4-6 are more aspirational.  They are asking about ways to promote diversity.  The questions should be amended as follows:

-  Q4 should focus on asking about ways to promote diversity in membership and leadership
-  Q5 should ask about educational or informational initiative to promote diversity awareness
-  Q6 should focus on asking about policies/practices which promote diversity

I would also like to add one further suggestion of my own.  In our original list of questions, we had one which asked "Does your SO/AC/group have any formal policies and procedures relating to diversity?  If so, please provide details of these.” as well as "Does your SO/AC/group have any informal practices relating to diversity?  If so, please provide details of these.”  We seem to have retained the latter question but not the former.  I do think it would be useful to ask about both formal and informal, but I am conscious that we don’t want to increase the number of questions so I have merged both of these aspects in the new Q6.

Taking the above feedback into account, I have attempted to incorporate all these points into an updated Questionnaire which is attached for your review.  I realise that the Diversity Sub-Group has not necessarily collectively agreed with all these recommendations, but if any of the suggestions we received are not agreed, then we can change the Questionnaire accordingly.   I have not used “track changes” as I felt the list above adequately details the changes that have been made.

Cheers,  Julie



_______________________________________________
Ws2-diversity mailing list
Ws2-diversity at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-diversity at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170810/6e1d1788/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170312-Diversity-Questionnaire Updated.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 28160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170810/6e1d1788/CCWG-Accountability-WS2-PlenaryMeeting-20170312-Diversity-QuestionnaireUpdated-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170810/6e1d1788/attachment-0003.html>