2022-08-04 Work Stream 2 Community Coordination Group

Notes/ Action Items

Action items wiki space

Notes:

• Recap
• Melissa indicated that there was a strong agreement out of the group that the 7 elements of diversity are the foundation. Beyond this, there is also an agreement that individual groups are empowered to build upon that 7 elements, currently GAC and LACRALO are discussing and reported to this group about their discussions.
• Regarding proposed language for the three elements, there was no disagreements on the list after the first meeting, just a minor correction.
• Proposed no-impediments language for three elements
• The proposed language was shared on the screen: “The ICANN Community strives to ensure that there are no impediments or discrimination toward existing or potential community members based on the diversity elements of gender, age, and disability.”
• CLO said that it is not a concern, but raising the awareness, there are two schools of thought regarding the what the word should be, ability as opposed to disability and added that the group should recognize that a significant part of community prefers to think about abilities. Melissa said that the group is tracking the elements as they were written in the report.
• Sarah asked why race, nationalities and similar elements were not included?
• Vanda agreed with CLO, and she said that while translation she used abilities rather than disabilities, also answered Sarah’s question, there were lots of diplomatic issues, for example countries were taken out of the badges and regions were added. To avoid diplomatic issues, the regions were preferred.
• Julie agreed with Vanda and expanded that Geographical and Regional elements were believed that they are covering race and nationalities. This statement also does not mean that these 3 elements are the only elements that seek no impediments. What is also meant here is that collecting information regarding these 3 elements might be sensitive, so having no impediments is being used. Julie also added that it would be better if we track the language used in the report regarding ability vs. disability issue.
• Rob indicated that he is comfortable with the idea and language and he believes his community would support. He added that disability word is consistently used as “physical disability,” so if we are tracking the language in the report we can use physical disability. He also asked, if the physical disability here include or exclude neurodiversity.
• Julie said that this came up in early WS2 CCWG discussions regarding dropping the word physical in diversity discussions. She added that she is comfortable adding or not adding physical in front of disability.
• CLO said that it is tricky on the invisible physical disability spectrum. She is OK if the “Physical” is added in front of disability, but she said that there should be a footnote because there are invisible disabilities that are impossible to observe, but we should recognize them.
• Rob said that he would be more comfortable adding physical, accepting that it is not the ideal definition we are seeking. Footnote should be added but disability might be very inappropriately teased out in ways that the group might not anticipate and want to be used. A cognitive impediment also might make it questionable whether someone is capable of fulfilling certain job criteria, and that’s why the group should be careful not to define a criteria that could be misused or is an opportunity for some people to play games with it.
• Julie said that her group already discriminates the ability, they are already discriminating regarding ability, they are conducting a skills survey. 
• CLO added that disabilities does not make people qualified. The right management of these things in terms of setting up all programs and and systems that recognize lowest possible barriers to entry for suitably qualified and experienced people is what we want to get out of the end of this right, so I think we can work with whatever language is chosen. We have an opportunity now to make footnotes and clarifications that no impediments does not mean that there is a preference.
• Melissa said that it looks like the group is going to use Physical Disability and add footnotes.
• Suada said that disability is a common term, why not use the wording of UN Convention but use physical disabilities? She also added that disability indicator and how to start using sign language pilot. This topic is pinned to be discussed later.
• Sebastien said that understanding of gender has changed since the CCWG had had this discussion 3 years ago. The group should push the discussion to have people with disabilities, if they have the same skill, to have certain position, if we don’t say that, where is the diversity. Regarding the race discussion, some groups already implement subregion approach. If the group wants to track the report regarding gender, it is OK, but Sebastien thinks that a gender balance should be discussed, even if it is 2 genders and we have to stop there. Regarding sign language, which language we would choose, it might start to be difficult?
• Melissa indicated that it would be great if we keep sign language issue to be discussed later during this call and summarized that addition of addition of footnote and impediments language.
• Remaining 4 elements
  • Vanda indicated that the subregion issue was a big point of discussion and at the end LACRALO decided to have a rotation among regions in the leadership positions to guarantee that the regional participation is balanced and it is working very well.
  • CLO said that when the CCWG discussed Geographic Regions, the group decided not to change ICANN decided regions because it was working well in the ICANN context. There was pain points, like small islands, historical colonial linkages. So an opportunity was given those who feels like their country/territory belongs to another region can change theirs.
  • CLO also added that the regional structure is very tight in At-Large and Bylaws mandated, currently there are even problems, where specific regions have attendance of more skilled people and they cannot get leadership positions. It might work for LACRALO but it might not in APRALO with the same granularity. So, having it tighter might not work.
  • Melissa indicated that the group showed the desire to have these 7 elements as a foundation continues. 
  • Mary said that an Additional Budget Request can be used for the sign language pilot, this can be discussed with other SOACs and support staff.
• Geographical Diversity
• A Tool for assessing diversity of groups
• Mary added that the starting point of the whole diversity discussion is based on the multistakeholder model, having not just accountability and transparency but also more meaningful participation. The tool might be a good place to start discussion in the groups.
• Alp shared the tool and shared that this tool stems from recommendation 1.1 and will help groups to implement recommendation 1.2 and serves as a tool to the community, as part of recommendation 1.6. The tool to be shared with community for their comments and additions.
• Melissa indicated that as the group discusses 7 elements as foundation, the group will also talk about the recommendations in a sequential way.
• AOB
• The group will not have a meeting on September since there is an ICANN meeting and it will be a busy month for most people.