<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Mathieu,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">the plan agreed in the last call was to issue a consensus call (sorry for the delay) for few days to see if there is any objection to the final version and moving to work on the draft report.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I understand that you are proposing here some edits for 2 questions. if we have a suggested wording for those amendments it will be really helpful. looking to hear from the subgroups participants if they agree with those changes.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-03 5:17 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Rafik, </div><div><br></div><div>I understand the intent, and fully support the idea to leave some room to the So/ACs. </div><div><br></div><div>We may be able to accomplish both if we expand on the question by indicating that they can, for instance, indicate legal constraints, priorities, official policy criteria, etc. and for the second question clarifying they can add any other element they consider important ? </div><div><br></div><div>I'm really trying to avoid any ambiguity that would lead to extra delay in the submission of the responses. Experience for the So/AC accountability questionnaire indicates that response time take up to 2 month+. </div><div><br></div><div>Best<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br><div>Mathieu Weill</div><div>---------------</div><div>Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style</div></font></span></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>Le 2 févr. 2017 à 09:11, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Dear Mathieu,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">thanks for the comment, </div><div class="gmail_extra">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. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br>The third question covers how the SO/AC track diversity and measure it, indicating which mechanisms they are applying if any.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-02 16:56 GMT+09:00 Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
I think the questionnaire is taking good shape. Maybe my comment is<br>
redundant, but I wonder whether the notions of "relevance" or "importance"<br>
of diversity dimensions will be clear for our questionnaire's target<br>
group.<br>
<br>
Both notions can lead to very "diverse" interpretations, and I wonder<br>
whether we should be more precise ? Are we asking them if they have legal<br>
constraints, set targets for their groups, are tracking diversity levels ?<br>
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Message d'origine-----<br>
De : <a href="mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org">ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.or<wbr>g</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-diversity-bounces@icann.org">ws2-diversity-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>] De la part de Renata Aquino<br>
Ribeiro<br>
Envoyé : jeudi 2 février 2017 02:57<br>
À : <a href="mailto:ws2-diversity@icann.org">ws2-diversity@icann.org</a><br>
Objet : [Ws2-diversity] diversity questionnaire - observations from 31jan<br>
mtg<br>
<div class="m_8605681877569101998HOEnZb"><div class="m_8605681877569101998h5"><br>
Hi all<br>
<br>
Pls. find the latest version of diversity questionnaire according to<br>
observations from 31st jan meeting.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GNDjfYRs3FwQULKScgSmw/edit" rel="noreferrer">https://docs.google.com/docume<wbr>nt/d/13UBH5JXmOvxA6H6Kg6W6o0GN<wbr>DjfYRs3FwQULKS<br>
cgSmw/edit</a><br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Renata<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-diversity mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-diversity@icann.org">Ws2-diversity@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-diversity</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-diversity mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-diversity@icann.org">Ws2-diversity@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-diversity" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-diversity</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>