FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
3 Comments
Alan Greenberg
This issue started on the ALAC Mailing list. The traffic to date is replicated here. Please make any firther comments on the Wiki.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 19:18:14 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
I would like to call your attention to this paper that was just circulated by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 on Diversity.
The ALAC was silent on the question of an Office of Diversity (OOD) that was mentioned in the draft recommendations (see https://community.icann.org/x/Z5tEB)
As important as diversity is, I find it troublesome that ICANN might be dedicating more bureaucracy to it. As I noted in my recent comments on the Specific Reviews Operating Standards ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17oct17/2018q1/000008.html ), I find that for the best of reasons, ICANN is building more and more complex process, rules and bureaucracy. At a time when it is clear we are going to have increasing budget constraint, this must be controlled. If we consider issues such as this as sacred , then we will see more and more other more discretionary budgets cut (and I am predicting that if we don't change our philosophy, budget issues will get MUCH worse).
According to the original recommendations document ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-acct-ws2-draft-recs-diversity-26oct17-en.pdf ): The role of this office would be to independently support, record and keep track of issues including complaints from the community on diversity issues within the organization.
I presume that by "organization" the document means all of ICANN (ICANN Organization as the staff are now known, the volunteer community and the Board). For ICANN Organization, I see this as falling directly under Human Resources and the Complaints Officer. For the volunteer part of ICANN, and the Board, I think it quite reasonable to keep records but that does not warrant a staffed office. Selection of volunteers is not done centrally, and complaints presumably should go to the Ombudsman.
Should the ALAC issue a further statement on this? And if so, what are your views?
Alan
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 14:42:12 -1000
Hi Alan
I will repeat a message I sent to an internal group as my only comment on the matter.
I am not in favour of a formal office for diversity.
In the multi-stakeholder bottom-up organisation that ICANN is supposed to be, diversity should be one of the underpinning features of its corporate culture. It shouldn't have to be defined and detailed. It should be characterised by the inclusive nature of its policies and practices. I agree with you in that we don't need more bureaucracy, we just need ICANN org to actively and constructively work with the rich diversity of the membership groups of ICANN so that we can together successfully achieve our mission. Dealing with any diversity issues can be given to the Ombudsman and his/her team.
Maureen
From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:07:08 +1100
Folks
Part of me absolutely supports any moves that support diversity. At one point in my life, I headed up the Equal Opportunity Unit in the Aust. Broadcasting Corporation so diversity was my job.
Putting that aside, I have serious doubts about the concept in this context.
If they talking about just ICANN staff, there is already an ICANN HR function that would (or should) be charged with addressing the issue.
If they talking about the various organisations that attend the SOs/ACs? I have even more concern. Just for starters, it is up to each SO/AC - and then individual members within each SO/AC as to who participates. Is ICANN seriously going to tell GAC members that some of them must send more women representatives/more Asian members/more members from non-English speaking backgrounds? And who is going to tell each registry/registrar whom they can send to represent them!
If the idea is to have diversity in the make-up of ICANN committees, I would hope the first basis for selection is qualifications for the task.
In short, I support Alans comments. If the concept is diversity WITHIN ICANN staff, it is covered by HR. Otherwise, I have real doubts about the concept, other than - at best -it could be just a score card.
Holly
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:19:51 -1000
+1 Holly
From: "Alberto Soto" <asoto@ibero-americano.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 01:11:05 -0300
I agree Holly.
Diversity should be managed by standards, not by a group of people. It would be like the inquisition. We designate a woman as ALAC Chair, and that group will tell us: you CAN NOT, you must appoint a man ????
It would be very simple that there are two lines where the different types of diversity are described, in the order in which they should be taken into account for the designations. Of course it should be headed by knowledge, the qualifications for that task. This for all ICANN, and we would save a lot of money.
Regards
Alberto
From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:04:26 +0000
I am with Holly in this matter.
I am always in favor to promote diversity as you all know that but not mandatory over the qualification and adequacy for any place.
I never agreed with the common obligation is many places around the world with mandatory percentages of women, or other gender, or other race.
Equal opportunity meaning to be equal. Not because you are this or that you should be chosen in prejudice of a more qualified people for the position.
Diversity is to be open to ANY qualified people for a job, a contract, a volunteer position, election etc.
Kisses to all
Vanda Scartezini
From: "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:46:07 +0800
Hi,
I fully agree with the comments initiated by Alan and the points by Maureen, Holly and others.
That is, ALAC should issue a statement against establishing this office. I believe comments of Holly, Maureen and others would suffice as the main body of the statement.
Kaili
From: Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@rol.ru>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 21:04:17 +0300
OMG!
Holly, Alan, +1. Please keep me out from keyboard for a while...
--andrei
From: Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:36:55 -0400
I do not disfavor measures like “affirmative action” to attain better balanced workplaces, leadership positions and governmental contexts (In fact, I think representative democracy, in order to truly be representative must sometimes force such representativity with measures that force gender balance. There is good evidence that “affirmative action” measures can balance out many structural and societal obstacles that tend to predetermine male-dominated scenarios, even there are highly qualified women around and available.
http://ajou.ac.kr/~seoyong/paper/2014-
However, in this particular context I agree with the line of thinking in this thread, particularly as espoused by Holly and Alan, since it is in no way a critique of diversity itself as a positive end, it’s an objection to the way ICANN is structuring the means to that end, which seems to be impracticable and perhaps counterproductive. Why not put scarce ICANN dollars in more outreach geared at female stakeholders, or perhaps supporting spouses of male stakeholders (in return for active Community participation) instead of more bureaucratic/organizational layers?
2 Cents.
Javier
From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:54:21 -0500
Fully agree. It is astounding that ICANN wants to consider growing its bureaucracy just as budgets are shrinking.
Perhaps our advice should encourage the Board and senior staff to show leadership to its community as it moves to an increasing culture of austerity. Before ICANN asks its volunteers to sacrifice (through reduced support and/or increased workload) it should engage in some of its own.
(Also funny how ICANN wants to take diversity seriously only AFTER it has set in place policies - on gTLD expansion and the concept of domains as rental property, for instance - that can't really be undone even if a newly-diverse community disagrees with that path.)
- Evan
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:22:30 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Evan, please note that this proposal is not from ICANN Organization (current name for staff) or the Board. It is from a number of the community members of the CCWG-Accountability group looking at recommendation to make to the AC/SOs and the Board.
Alan
From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:41:28 -0500
Understood, and thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps the idea of warming against selective austerity might make it into the ALAC response in any case.
- Evan (on mobile)
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:55:44 -0500
Well said, Maureen. Big +1.
Deeds!
-Carlton
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 19:56:42 -0500
[In response to Holly.]
Yes indeed. On point.
Big +1
-Carlton
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:57:13 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
[In response to Evan.]
Oh yes!!!
From: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:07:27 +0100
I am with Holy and Alan on this one, i.e. when it comes to additional ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘budget’ that would have to be reserved for an OOD. So I too think setting up such an office is not a good idea.
As a fyi, with regard to ‘diversity’ as a theme within ICANN, I can only reiterate myself. When a couple of us worked on a draft statement re the CCWG WS2 ‘Enhancing Accountability - Recommendations for Diversity’ report last December, I a.o. stated:
'I too am convinced ‘diversity’ is a good and important thing to strive for. But it is not a goal in itself as far as I am concerned - I could not care less whether someone is black or blue or what her/his sexual orientation might be. Without going into detail, (the first half of) this draft is the most political correct piece of windowdressing material I have come across in a long time. Simply put, IMO, its reads as a plea for ‘diversity for the sake of diversity and let’s focus on that in stead of what ICANN’s missions tells us to’. Emphasised by a large amount of supposedly ‘factual’ statements without basis/underlying sources.’
(Obviously that was a personal point of view. I then left it to others to suggest comments and I stayed ’neutral’)
From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:45:10 -0400
As a FYI, the ICANN Board responded during the public comment period last month http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-accountability-diversity-26oct17/attachments/20180116/539b3dfe/ICANNBoardComments-WS2Diversity-0001.pdf saying that the office will not be established given lack of consensus and budget constraints.
Dev Anand
From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:00:51 +0000
Good decision.
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:48:55 -0500
Thanks for the info, Dev.
If that's the case, IMO we should appreciate but not applaud the decision.
Diversity is still a worthwhile goal, but it is best spread by culture and leadership rather than bureaucracy. ALAC is and has been one of the most diverse communities within ICANN (consider, for instance, our pioneering use of language interpretation long before most other volunteer communities -- including, suprisingly, the GAC) and yet we are still striving for better. Perhaps we have something to offer (so long as the result of this offer is not compelled volunteer labour :-P )
IMO there is nothing wrong in taking this opportunity to remind of the value (and values) we bring to ICANN. Heaven knows there are plenty who would take any opportunity to put us down....
Cheers,
- Evan
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:20:44 -1000
+1 Evan
From: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:25:18 -1000
I agree with Evan.
We shouldn't have to make rules for diversity when it should be part of ICANN's makeup.
We don't have to do this in APRALO and it works for us!
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 00:09:25 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
That is correct. But the issue has been raised again in the subgroup, and that is why I raised it here.
Alan
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:33:17 +0000
From: Beran Dondeh via ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
I agree with Maureen in that ICANN and the community should come up ways and means of ensuring that Diversity is a part of its processes and also support programs such as the Intercultural program which supports and encourages Diversity. Diversity should be a part of ICANN but does not necessarily need a dedicated office in order to do that.
Beran
Alan Greenberg
To: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Subject: SUMMARY: [ALAC] IMPORTANT: PAPER ON OFFICE OF DIVERSITY PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thanks for the active discussion on this.
I have asked Evin to move the discussion to an At-Large policy page and that is now done - https://community.icann.org/x/-Ra8B.
All of the e-mail messages here have been inserted in a lead-in comment. Please make any further comments there.
To summarize, there is a reasonable strong position being formulated: We strongly and passionately believe in diversity (and have some pride in beleiving that we do play our part), but do not believe that we need a formal Office of Diversity.
I believe that we must reply to the WS2 group.
Please respond (on the wiki) with whether you believe we need a formal statement, or if you wish me to reply summarizing our discussion?
Alan
Holly Raiche
I really have said my piece and I believe we all agree. We are all strong supporters of diversity. Indeed, the membership of ALAC is testament to that fact. But, aside from diversity WITHIN ICANN staff - which is ICANN's responsibility - we do not support the establishment of any formal structure that tries to mandate diversity in the makeup of SO/ACs of the working groups/review teams.