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

[Rafik Dammak]

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 at 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 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 7:10 AM
> To: Pam Little
> Cc: Rafik Dammak; Mathieu Weill; ws2-diversity at 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 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/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQ
> > ULKS
> > 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170204/fcbb3679/attachment-0001.html>