[Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan mtg

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

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 at 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 at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 7:11 PM
> To: Mathieu Weill
> Cc: ws2-diversity at 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 at 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 at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Renata Aquino
> Ribeiro
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57
> À : ws2-diversity at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-diversity mailing list
> Ws2-diversity at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-diversity mailing list
> Ws2-diversity at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity
>