• Accept As-Is
• Accept With modification
• Reject

Rationale:

MK: Accept with modification. As this is not a GNSO only issue, wouldn't it be more appropriate that this is linked with the previous 'ICANN' effort to define cultural diversity which would bring in reps from all different SO/ACs?

39

Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(Support) This recommendation should be a guideline or goal; in some instances it is virtually impossible to meet the full spectrum of demographic, cultural and gender diversity in order to have a fully functional WG with active participation.

76

Osvaldo Novoa

ISPCP

(It Depends) Adequate participation coupled with the need to ensure the requisite level of expertise and knowledge is brought to the table remains the prime requirement. If that can be met whilst taking full account of the other stated requirements it would be ideal, if not unnecessary risks may be incurred.

110

Rudi Vansnick

NPOC

We agree on the majority of the recommendations, especially those emphasizing efforts for better and greater outreach to, and enabling participation of, volunteers in the policy work.

149

Yannis Li

APAC

We look forward to participating in a GNSO WG “whose membership specifically reflects the demographic, cultural and gender diversity of the Internet as a whole,” if and when such a group is established.

157

Anupam Agrawal

Internet Society, India Kolkata Chapter

The Indian representation in the GNSO council or for that matter the Asia Pacific User vis a vis the representation in GNSO is not reflective enough and efforts needs to be made to improve the scenario. The same analysis based on different groups within GNSO will reflect the real picture and can be included as part of analysis. The Westlake observation in terms of diversity of participation, is absolutely correct and there is agreement in this regard.

173

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

We have to be realistic as to what ICANN can achieve. While real-time transcripts may indeed help (perhaps funded by the new gTLD auction fees), it is difficult to see how it is ICANN’s role to overcome non-comprehension, cultural interpersonal norms or “unconscious biases”. Thus, while the BC does not object to Recommendation 35 we should be realistic and guard against such a WG becoming an academic discussion forum for global linguistic variation.

225

Stephanie Perrin

NCUC/NCSG

Good idea, we would participate.

272

Greg Shatan

IPC

(Support)

290

Amr Elsadr

I have no objection to this recommendation.

346

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

ALAC

(Support) The ALAC would support the creation of such a Working Group and hopes that it would allow At-Large members to share their knowledge and experience. The ALAC would also recommend that this Working Group uses interpretation in at least Spanish and French, but possibly in other ICANN regularly interpreted languages. Ultimately, INCLUSION should be incorporated into the GNSO Rules of Procedure. It should be a right for all GNSO members to be able to participate in all WGs regardless of language and other diversity criteria.