[CCWG-ACCT] Draft doc DIversity (was Re: Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3 (10 July)

Sun Jul 12 02:06:15 UTC 2015

Hello
ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to
address diversity issue.
Please find attached a first draft document about diversity.
And the link to a Google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PN0uI8JWpfVwabxoiwF7QqtLP4aiPSK_2zaoQlJm
72I/edit

The next call is on the 13th.
I will be on my flight from Lima to Paris or just landing and needing to
catch a train. Difficult to join.
See you soon in Paris.
All the best
Sébastien Bachollet
+33 6 07 66 89 33
Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com>

De :  <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson at icann.org>
Date :  vendredi 10 juillet 2015 07:49
À :  "accountability-cross-community at icann.org"
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Cc :  "acct-staff at icann.org" <acct-staff at icann.org>
Objet :  [CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP3 Meeting #3
(10 July)

> Hello all,
>  
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP3 Meeting #3  10 July will be
> available here:  
>  
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783270
>  
> A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>  
> Thank you.
>  
> Best regards,
> Kim
> 
>  
>  
> ACTION Items
> ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer.
> ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC
> accountability.
> ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules.
> ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to
> create a google doc.
> ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on
> staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task.
> ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address
> diversity issue. 
>  
> Notes
> Review of Open Action Items
> All action items are complete. More volunteers are needed for staff
> accountability group.
> ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in staff accountability should volunteer.
>  
> SO/AC Accountability Draft Proposal
> It explains scope of our work. It closes by suggesting 4 actions that should
> be taken into account when the CCWG builds its next proposal:
> - Amend current draft and include commitment to have each SO/AC perform a
> complete review of existing mechanisms as part of WS2 to be implemented after
> transition;
> - Include evaluation of proposed "Mutual Accountability Roundtable" as part of
> WS2;
> 3 Establish a commitment to carry a detailed working plan on enhancing
> SO/Accountability as part of WS2;
> 4 Clarify that IRP should be applicable to SO/AC activities.
> Feedback: 
> - Would there also be a review - in terms of documentation - of SO/AC rules
> and procedures? Would that be part of the review that will be undertaken?
> Mathieu circulated something that had provisions about SO/ACs - why was that
> not included?
> --> Intent is to have this draft refined.
> ACTION ITEM: Jan and Leon to include Mathieu's suggestions on SO/AC
> accountability.
> --> Staff included this set of documents in the reading list.
> ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the list of SO/ACs' accountability rules.
> - There are nested regulations that will show rules are in place but it won't
> necessarily show that rules are being followed or that we are accountable to
> community. To what extent do we want to claim that SO/Acs embody a real subset
> that maps to community outside?
> ---> Most of references that we find in ATRT recommendations are nested rules
> that should apply to staff. We need to be clearer as to which rules and how
> they are applicable to each SO/AC.
> - We all have a consistent set of rules. At the moment, because of
> relationship of SO/ACs, there is not only broader accountability, there is
> also a cycle of Board reviews. We have to include review cycle as part of it.
> The effectiveness of review cycle depends on model we have.  IRP is currently
> not applicable: we need more than a clarification: we need retesting of IRP.
> Is there an escalation procedure at the moment to get to IRP i.e.
> reconsideration etc? Is it appropriate for workload etc? Ombudmsan has done a
> lot of work in arbitrary issues: is that an ingredient as well?
> ---> Avri's help on how to address questions and to build them into document
> would be welcome. While ombudsman's role is to mediate between different
> people, unsure how could interpret that his role as an accountability
> mechanism. we would need to refine or enhance role with regards to this type
> of mediation. 
> - Another resource that could be added would be organizational reviews as they
> touch on accountability of organization. For instance Westlake review of GNSO.
> Similar reviews that will be conducted will be an essential part of the
> picture. 
> - Ombudsman is a large part of this. Although he does mediation, its formal
> rule has to do with fairness and exercising rules fairly, evenly across
> community. Ombudsman plays a large part of this.
> ACTION ITEM: Leon to incorporate comments on SO/AC accountability and to
> create a google doc.
>  
> Staff Accountability Draft Proposal
> The staff Accountatbility paper reflects comments made in the discussions that
> were started. Some views were incorporated, wording was tweaked, initial
> assessment was proposed. This might be incomplete: still need to go through
> documents to see how staff could be accountable to SO/ACs. With regards to
> AoC, all the AoC reviews include key commitments for ICANN, the organization.
> We have nested regulations that while applicable to SO/ACs should be also
> applicable to staff and do not have written commitments. We only a paragraph
> 9.e which refers directly to staff. No particular recommendation in ATRT work
> refers to Board actions to be undertaken by staff. Articles were found within
> Bylaws: while they established certain aspects of accountability, they don't
> address concerns raised. Three proposed CCWG steps are:
> 1. Review current document so we can extend mechanisms that we are proposing
> to staff work;
> 2. Include a work plan as part of WS2 that considers Code of conduct and
> transparency criteria;
> 3. Establishment of regular independent audit to track progress.
> Feedback: 
> - Staff are very often the only one who know what's going on inside inside
> operation of ICANN. They cannot report what's going on. ATRT has discussed
> whistblowing and it is pending. It should be part of our accountability
> package. 
> ---> We should think about adding this component to suggestions.
> ACTION ITEM: Leon to set up a google doc for volunteers to provide input on
> staff accountability. More volunteers are needed for this task.
>  
> Diversity 
> - Sebastien's comment covers diversity with regards to different criteria:
> gender balance, age, region, stakeholders etc. An email from Jan was
> circulated on this issue which recommended to make exclusive commitments with
> regards to diversity that would address this issue. WS2 could include specific
> list of issues on diversity of SO/ACs.
> Feedback: 
> - A remark made in public forum with regards to diversity has to do with
> accessibility to those with various disabilities. There is an accessibility
> group in ALAC. Balancing diversity with other needs can sometimes create
> unintended consequences.
> ---> Comments from AFNIC were also submitted: proposal to expand ATRT to
> diversity review. It also suggests protecting from one region's influence.
> - Hard to discuss diversity requirements. Unsure whether talking about 29
> members. One could look at regional diversity. Is the group happy we would
> limit diversity to a region - we will need to have an explicit decision of how
> far we are addressing diversity at this stage.
> ---> So far, we have looked a geographic only but constructive to consider
> other factors (language, age, etc). Our document should establish a fixed set
> of criteria.
> - There could be an endless cycle of diversity concerns that do not
> substantically increase overal expertise. It would be very case by case.
> Sometimes gender diversity would provide a grater enhancement of expertise
> than geographic diversity.
> ---> We need balance.
> - Specific to issue, diversity requirements created on fly.
> - When we have various models and contracts, we push to meet all diversity in
> that number. Hard coded requirements should be made different.  We get
> concerns about geographic balance at the cost of volunteers willing to do
> work. We should look at balance in human kind - we should try mechanisms to
> bring that. They should be seen as important. We need to take it through
> staged implementation role.
> - We invariably end up suffering from diversity requirements. Getting
> volunteers to do the work is where we severely struggle at ICANN. The largest
> disability is not speaking English - we are never going to have the money from
> translation/interpretation that the UN has.
> - There is a group which is trying to systematically evolve policy culture of
> ICANN to use metrics. We are doing that by building language into templates
> that are used for issues report and chartering. In each and every case, it
> looks at feasibility so that it becomes explicit aspiration, as opposed to
> implicit. It is the duty of the group to ensure there are enough voices to be
> heard. Anything that looks like quota is to increase overall implementation in
> ICANN. We are not opposed to getting more diversity which will have effect of
> greater involvement.
> - There may be struggles to get volunteers but it is probably not purely a
> function of getting people involved. ICANN room is not close to current
> distribution. 
> - Any discussion should talk about how to expand pool of outsiders for
> outreach and engagement.
> - We have cultures that do not work the way ICANN works. Culture is an
> important aspect we cannot forget. Justifying accountability as impediments
> might stop participation. We live in complex world.
> ACTION ITEM: Sebastien Bachollet is to create a first draft of how to address
> diversity issue. 
>  
> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community
> mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150711/4085778a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Diversity_draft_proposal_V1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 314982 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150711/4085778a/Diversity_draft_proposal_V1.docx>