[Ws2-diversity] diversity in leadership - GNSO responses

Fri Jul 21 04:17:01 UTC 2017

Dear Colleagues,
Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall seeing a response to the questionnaire from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG). 
With regard to Renata's and Rafik's comments, I would add that RySG and the RrSG (Registrars Stakeholder Group) each have 3 seats on the GNSO Council and the respective RySG and RrSG Charters mandate that each of their three GNSO Council representatives should come from separate geographic region. Yet, in the case of the RrSG, two of its GNSO representatives are from NA and one from EU. And there are no diversity requirements (such as geographic, language or cultural diversity referenced in the ICANN bylaws) for other leadership roles within the RySG or RrSG.  
I would also point out some of the findings in the Afnic study last year. " See https://www.afnic.fr/medias/documents/Dossiers_pour_actualites/2016_Icann_Diversity_Data.pdf:												"4.1.2. Africa, Latin America and Asia are under-represented					Another striking element of this chart is the very low presence of African Region representatives: only21 of the 190 “leaders”. The Latin American region is slightly above with 28 representatives.					gNSO and NomCom have only one African representative and some groups even have no Africanpresence at all such as SSAC and RSSAC. The latter also has no Latin American representative.					As a reference, Africa has more than 1,1 billion inhabitants, and Latin America around 650 millioninhabitants.					Indeed a complementary approach would be to compare with data on regular Internet users. On thismeasure Asia will be the most underrepresented. Indeed, one of the most glaring absences in ICANN, relative to prominence in the Internet world, is China and India, the two largest countries by Internet users." (my emphasis)As I mentioned in my earlier email, one of the recommendations (Rec 33) from the recent GNSO Review explicitly refers to cultural diversity. So I am curious to know whether this CCWG WS2 Diversity Sub-group will develop a definition for "cultural diversity" in our report or recommendations. If not, who will be tasked to come up with such definition for the implementation of Rec 33 of the GNSO Review WG?Rec 33: That Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the Nominating Committee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to the GNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, gender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value 4.Comment by ICANN staff supporting  GNSO Review WG:The GNSO Review WG will be continuing its discussion on Recommendation 33,...  I would think that the WG would seek consistency in its approach concerning references to “cultural diversity,” but as the implementation charters have not been finalized for these recommendations I cannot speak to what the WG will determine, although I do know that at least for 33 they are awaiting the results of the responses to the questionnaire. 
Kind regards,
Pam 

------------------------------------------------------------------From:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>Time:2017 Jul 21 (Fri) 13:26To:Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>Cc:ws2-diversity <ws2-diversity at icann.org>Subject:Re: [Ws2-diversity] diversity in leadership - GNSO responses
Hi Renata,
the response was from GNSO Council and details about diversity at the groups level were left to stakeholder groups and constituencies like registrars stakeholder group and NCSG to respond to. The council is formed by representatives appointed by the stakeholders/constituencies in GNSO through their internal mechanisms like elections. by leadership do you mean the chair and vice-chairs (2) in GNSO Council? only the chair is elected by the council while the vice-chairs are appointed by each house of GNSO i.e. contracted party and non-contracted party.
Best,
Rafik

2017-07-21 11:25 GMT+09:00 Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>:
Hi 
I am also confused as to why the GNSO responses were an explanation of how it is structured.It would be interesting indeed to understand provisions GNSO has for diversity in its leadership or any other aspect.I wonder if this is a case to follow up w/ GNSO to get more information. I do understand, though, since all components of GNSO have sent in their information, we may be going around in circles.
Another option out would be to issue a recommendation to consider a balance between diversity in appointments and composition of a group or leadership team.
Best,
Renata

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
Thank you for your feedback and questions. My responses are related to the GNSO only, as I am not familiar with other structures.
My answer to the first part of your question #1 is a clear No. I would refer you to these APAC Space Comments on GNSO Review Draft Report. I was the author of those comments and I would reiterate the concern or "the warning by the ICC report commissioned by theATRT 2 that the GNSO risks global legitimacy when it does not include viewpoints from Africa,Asia/Pacific and the Latin American/Caribbean/South American regions." 
 As to the second part of question #1 "whether a new structural reform of ICANN is called for at this time", to me, this might be beyond the scope of this group. I am also not sure if a new structure is the answer to improving diversity.
I should also note that that the GNSO and ICANN Baord's responses to the GNSO Review missed the mark by omitting what I see as the most important recommendation #32  (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2016-06-25-en#2.e and below) "Resolved (2016.06.25.13), taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32)."
Recommendation 32: That ICANN define “cultural diversity” and that relevant metrics (encompassing geographic, gender, age group and cultural, possibly by using birth language) be monitored and publi    shed.
Recommendation 32 was rejected on the grounds that it was too broad. Yet, Recommendation 36 explicitly refers to "cultural diversity". I raised this with ICANN staff during ICANN59 meeting but received a somehow convoluted answer. Recommendation 36: That Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and the NominatingCommittee, in selecting their candidates for appointment to theGNSO Council, should aim to increase the geographic, g        ender and cultural diversity of its participants, as defined in ICANN Core Value.I do find it odd that GNSO's response to this group's questionnaire did not address any questions. Rather, it was an overview of the GNSO Council structure and PDP WG. 
~~With regard to your question #2, I think diversity has to start from the bottom-up. In other words, from the composition of working groups, stakeholder groups and constitiencies upwards. I would refer you to the stats within the contracted party house of the GNSO, RySG and RrSG. I hope the facts/numbers speak for themselves.
RegionRySG membership 17 June 2017                            %RrSG membership 14 July 2017                                %NA3943%3534%EU3539%4543%AP1314%1716%LAC22%44%Africa11%33%Total90100%104100%RySG  LeadershipRegionRrSG LeadershipRegionChairNAChairNAVice Chair, AdminNAVice Chair, TechnologiesEUVice Chair, PolicyEUSecretaryEUTreasurerNATreasurerEUNonCom RepNANonCom RepNA->EU (ICANN60)GNSO Council Seat 1AP*GNSO Council Seat 1NAGNSO Council Seat 2NAGNSO Council Seat 2EUGNSO Council Seat 3LACGNSO Council Seat 3NA* Australian living in USA

Kind regards,
Pam

------------------------------------------------------------------From:Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>Time:2017 Jul 18 (Tue) 18:04To:PAMELA LITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>;Subject:Re: [Ext] Re: Diversity Subgroup Meeting #26 | 13:00 UTC | Thursday, 13 July 2017
On 18/07/2017 05:44, Pam Little wrote:
> I  would be very interested to know the views of the ICANN Ombudsman or
> participants of this group. Do you think it is representative or
> inclusive of the global Internet or DNS community?

They are each tasked with representing the SOACs that appointed them.

So the question really falls into two parts:

i) do you think the ASO, ccNSO, gNSO, ALAC and GAC represents the global
Internet community (at least in relation to ICANN), or is new structural
reform of ICANN called for at this time?

ii) do you think that the SOACs should be free to choose who they wish
to represent them, or should their choice be restricted to reduce the
number of white and male representatives chosen?

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

_______________________________________________
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/20170721/70e9dc56/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Alibaba Cloud.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 29226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170721/70e9dc56/AlibabaCloud-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Alibaba Cloud.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 29226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-diversity/attachments/20170721/70e9dc56/AlibabaCloud-0003.png>