RECORDED VOICE: This meeting is now being recorded.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you.  Welcome, all, to the Diversity Subgroup meeting number 15, on the 23 of March, 2017 at 1300 UTC.  We have so far seven participants on this call.  We expect that others will join.  Anyone who doesn’t have their name showing, kindly confirm with [inaudible] record your attendance.   Or – Brenda, you have got everybody already?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: [inaudible]

 

BRENDA BREWER: We do have a phone number ending in [CROSSTALK] 5117 –

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Right.

 

BRENDA BREWER: If that person would identify their name, please.

I’m sorry, I can’t hear the person with the cell number ending in 5117.  Would you please identify your name for attendance?

So, phone number 3 [inaudible]

 

FIONA ASONGA: Okay, so I think [inaudible]

 

BRENDA BREWER: Can you - [inaudible] she did say hello when she joined; I just didn’t catch [inaudible]

 

DALILA RAHMOUNI: Oh, yeah.  Sorry!  It’s Dalila Rahmouni, from France.

 

BRENDA BREWER: Oh, thank you so much.  Thank you.

 

DALILA RAHMOUNI: Sorry, I didn’t hear.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you very much.  With that, we’ll move on to the agenda for this meeting.  It’s not very long, but [inaudible] to the following items.  The [inaudible] questionnaire.  This is an item [inaudible] what should be done from the last meeting was to be sent out [inaudible] in the first meeting, and that’s happened.  And [inaudible] was also to [inaudible] for the language needs for interpretation, and the request was presented to the Plenary; and this is [inaudible].  Then, the third agenda item is to review the feedback from the Copenhagen meeting [inaudible].  So, we can go through those action items.

One, the questionnaire.  This document [inaudible] from the 12 th , the [inaudible] questionnaire.  Rafik and I have had support from Julie Hammer – thank you so much for your input and assistance in working on the language for the document, and I have just circulated the [inaudible] questionnaire, including the recommendations given on the floor of the CCWG Plenary during the face-to-face meeting in Copenhagen.  Then [inaudible] is able to pull that up – there was an email of the 12 th , and there was an email sent out today – actually, just a few minutes ago – before the call, a few minutes ago.  [inaudible] transcribe those questions onto our wide document, so that we can all get to share them.  But if you go to my email of the 12 th , you will get on it a better question.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Coming up, Fiona.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you.  And so, there we have the draft [inaudible] questionnaire [inaudible] the CCWG Plenary feedback.  We were asked to give a brief explanation of what the groups were, and then how the element of diversity was identified [inaudible] the questions, so that would [inaudible].  [inaudible] recommend input on the drafting and writing of the questions – input came in from [inaudible] and [inaudible].  And what I have not received is feedback now from the Diversity group on the questions.  I sent them to you on the 12 th ; they’re still the same.  Those haven’t changed.  It would be good to know if there is anyone who has any objections to any of the adjustments we have made, or anything that is not clear.  Anyone with any questions, inquiries?

So, we do have a consensus to proceed with this questionnaire?

Thank you; I can see a lot of yeses in the chat, and agreement from participants.  Okay, that was fast.  Thank you.  Then, the other was a request for interpretation services.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Fiona?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Yes?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: This is Bernie.  So, should I note this as a first reading, or a – ?

 

FIONA ASONGA: This is a first reading of [inaudible] the document has come back from the Plenary.  We will give it maybe another reading – a second reading – just so that in case there is anything anyone would like to raise in our next call, there will be time for them to look at the questions and raise that.  We are possibly going to have those two readings of this; then we are done, and can begin to re-look at the report that needs to go with this.  So yes, this is a first reading.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: This is a first reading.  Yes, Julie?

 

JULIE HAMMER: Thank you, Fiona.  Julie speaking.  I just wanted to ask whether others thought there was a necessity for this to go to a second reading, because we have been working on it for quite some time now, and I’m asking – I guess my [inaudible] would be to get it back to the Plenary as soon as possible.  And noting that we have actually incorporated a lot of feedback at the Plenary, I guess I’m [inaudible] whether it really does need to have a second reading, or whether we can agree that this is ready to go back to the Plenary.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Fiona?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Hello?  Can you hear me?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Yes.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Okay.  I would just like to thank Julie for raising the issue of whether or not it should go for a second reading.  My personal view is that normally, it’s important to at least give two readings, just so that we confirm that we are on the same page.  However, I am going to ask from those present on the call if we can have a show of how many would like it to immediately go back to Plenary, or would like to give it a [inaudible] second reading, from my point of view, is because of [inaudible] present on the call, and because we don’t totally have [inaudible] people [inaudible] on the call consistently.  So, to ensure that we have been able to reach as many of the group members as possible, I am for giving it two readings.  And that would be like, about [CROSSTALK]

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Fiona, if I could have a – Fiona, if I – ?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Yes, Bernard?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Thank you.  If we will remember the comments from the Plenary in Copenhagen, the expectation of the Plenary, I believe, is that the questionnaire will be included in your draft recommendations to have a single public consultation.  Now, if you want to send the questionnaire back as updated so the Plenary can look at it, I guess that’s fine; but doing so will not mean – according to what we agreed in Copenhagen – that it will be published.  So I’m just trying to clarify expectations here.  Thank you.

Fiona, if you’re speaking, we’re not hearing you at this point.

Given we seem to be having difficulties hearing Fiona, I’ll step in for a minute to just manage the queue, if – I see Fiona’s typing.  Julie?

 

JULIE HAMMER: Thank you, Bernie.  It’s Julie speaking.  My understanding of this questionnaire was that we were wanting to send this out to the community, and especially the SO/ACs, so that we could get feedback from them, which would be incorporated into our report.  We actually want to learn from the answers to these questionnaires, to come up with a better [inaudible] in our report.  That will also [inaudible] recommendations, so my thinking is that we should be getting this out to the community, directly to the SO/ACs, but also [inaudible], so that other members of the community that are not necessarily formal groups, and other individuals in the community, can respond to this information that will help us finalize our report and our recommendation.  So, my thinking was that this needs to get out as quickly as possible, and – provided that the Plenary accepts the final version of this questionnaire.  That is what happened with the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup questionnaire.  So if this is simply performed [inaudible] final report of this group, I’m not quite sure that it will be as useful as I had thought.  Thank you.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Fiona, you’re back, so I’ll hand over the queue to you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thanks, Julie, for that.  However, one of the things that came through from the Plenary was the need for us to have our draft report also prepared and ready to go out with the questionnaire.  If I correctly recall – and I stand to be corrected – I was asked by Leon if we would be able to prepare the draft report with whichever draft recommendations we would be able to put in, that the two – the report and the questionnaire – go together to reduce the period that we would require to get feedback from our group, and we said we would try.  So, inasmuch as the questionnaire is going to go back to the Plenary for consideration, I think there is this second task, which is to make sure that the report also goes into the Plenary, and that is the task that we need to pay some attention to.  Cheryl?

 

CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you very much, Fiona.  Cheryl Langdon-Orr, for the record.  I’m not sure that those aspirations are mutually exclusive.  I think this questionnaire is well and truly ready to go to the Plenary meeting on the 29 th .  And what that does, then, is mean that the questionnaire [inaudible] of what we want to take out to the SO/AC, and wider community can be [inaudible]; in other words, it can be ready to go.  That allows us to get on to the work of a little polish onto whatever report needs to go with it.  I just think that with this particular part of our work, the draft questionnaire, we’re losing valuable time.  I’m well aware of the amount of time it’s going to take for our community to respond to this questionnaire [inaudible] give due diligence and consideration to the responses back to us.  If we look at, then, Plenary [inaudible] after the Plenary, March – that’s yet another month [inaudible].  So I’d be taking this part of it to the Plenary and powering on as effectively as we can to make sure that we have the draft report in a good position to go to the next Plenary, so these two things can be tied together to go out to the community as soon as possible.  That’s my view, anyway.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Bernard, you’ve got something else to add?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: The way Cheryl describes it, I don’t think is incompatible with what was discussed at the Plenary in Copenhagen.  So if you want to take these as separate documents to the Plenary, there is a Plenary next week.  We certainly can get this one in under the wire, given that it’s not significantly different from the previous one – i.e. it’s not a first reading.  So, I think that meets the requirements, if everyone is comfortable with that.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Anyone in the group opposed to taking these [inaudible] on?  And then working on the reports separately, as Cheryl has proposed?

So, I assume everyone is in favor.  So that is what we are going to do.  We’re going to save as much time as possible, so on the next Plenary of the 29 th , we will table our questionnaire, and so, in between now and then we’re going to continue with the work that is pending on the second document.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Fiona?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Yes, Bernard?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Since I have to publish the documents for the Plenary today, I would then ask you to confirm that the document you sent a few minutes ago are the list that I will be publishing to the second reading.

Fiona?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Sorry, the [inaudible] is taking a bit long to go off.  The document you have before us is the document I sent before this meeting, and it is our final questionnaire, which we agreed to present to the CCWG Plenary.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Excellent.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you.  So, we are now done with the questionnaire, and moving on to our next item, which was the request for interpretation services.  So, we sent out an email requesting for interpretation services because part of the procedure requires that, to have a formal request on email asking for the provision of interpretation of services from at least three participants of each language.  We’ve gotten six responses for French, and I’m waiting for Spanish – I’ve got one request for Spanish and I need two more for Spanish – then Rafik and I will be able to compile our emails to Staff.  We’ve got evidence of [inaudible] requests for interpretations.  And so, Bernard was not able to get back to you because we did not meet our target for Spanish, unless we get some immediately after this call – two more requests for Spanish immediately after this call – then we should be able to ask for Spanish, but we are good on the French requests.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: I believe I got an email from Rafik, with the three Renata is listing in the chat.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Oh; okay.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: So, if you want, I can update you on the Co-Chairs meeting on this yesterday.

 

FIONA ASONGA: [inaudible] okay [inaudible] that is done, and we can proceed.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Ah, yes.  Your part is done.  The Co-Chairs have asked that we draft a request for them to send to ICANN, requesting the service for French, Spanish, and English.  As I noted in the email to yourself this morning, to complete the request, I am going to need the schedule of calls until the end of June for this group, because that plays a part in scheduling interpretation.  So, the last part I need from this group is the schedule going forward to June, and then we will draft the request for the Co-Chairs, and the Co-Chairs will turn this around very quickly and send this to ICANN as a request.  And then, we’ll wait to see how long it takes to go through the machine.  But everyone is aware and has been prepped on this.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you very much, Bernard, for that subject.  And yes, I have seen your email and I am consulting with Rafik.  Because of the different time zones we are in, we will be adjusting the calls accordingly, so we are assigning – we’re sharing out the sharing sessions on our calendars, so that then we can get back to you with a confirmation of the times for the group calls.  And Avri is asking for future meetings – yes, we need to provide that schedule for future meetings, so that the ICANN Staff can plan and be able to provide interpretation services as per the schedule of that call.  So we are going to schedule all our calls until the end of June.  Any questions or clarifications, other thoughts?

Yes, Renata?

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Thank you, Fiona.  I hope everyone can listen to me alright.  Just trying to keep up here with the agenda items.  So, there will be – just to confirm – there will be translation for Spanish in the next group call, or is that for another call?  And for the discussion of the report, are we going to address that, or later on our calls?  And about scheduling for June, I believe we had – the group had – a specific time and day of the week, so would we have a possibility to open up a Doodle to choose another one, or continue with this one?  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Oky.y  First thing, on the interpretation.  If we are able to put this in, then I do not know how long Staff will take to be able to get back to us – so I cannot confirm whether it will be the next call or the one after – but I think probably Bernard is best to advise us on how soon the interpretation can start once everything is put in.

Then, on the reports – the report wasn’t on our agenda today because Rafik and I are still putting together [inaudible] open [inaudible] anyone who wants to volunteer to help in putting together this report is welcome to work with us [inaudible] during the [inaudible], we got more requests for volunteers, especially those for whom English is their first language, to come in and help us with the drafting of this report, so that we are clear on the content we are putting into it, and it’s easy for all of us to understand and commit to quickly.  We’ve sent emails to some of the members of the group, asking – especially those who got a lot of feedback during the last round of discussions – and we reached out to them to ask if they can put in a bit more time to help us improve on their report and make sure it’s well done.  And so, if there is anyone on the reports who would like to help put it together, we are open.  Just send Rafik and I an email, and we should be able to include you in the small group we put together to  help with the drafting.

Then, on the side of the meeting dates, we did not quite [inaudible] standard dates; or we did not say that [inaudible].  We’re trying out different days, and Friday seems to work well for Rafik.  It’s never quite well for me; there are too many – Fridays are just difficult for me onto a call for some reason.  Our network keeps getting [inaudible] service on Fridays.  If there are anything that needs to be done in the [inaudible] Fridays are extremely disruptive and difficult to get [inaudible], at least for Kenya.  But Kenya [inaudible] is beyond my control.  So, for us to be able to equally co-chair, we are adjusting the calls based on who is chairing.  We had initially done the Doodle poll [inaudible] based on previous Doodle polls [inaudible] can see how to proceed.  And I’m open to suggestions.  We do feel that we should protect the timing of the calls.  We will try; however, it’s also best on whatever call are scheduled on the days we want to do the calls, because Staff gives us [inaudible] I think [inaudible] or three slots, and we have several groups that Staff has to support, and so it’s based on availability of the slots.

So, on the timing for the meeting – is there anyone who feels we need to probably make more effort to accommodate the interpreters, or – ?

Bernard has just shared with the queue the schedule between now and the 26 th of April – until the end of April.  Then we’ve got May and June that we need to finalize.

Okay.  So, based on the feedback in the chat from Renata, we will work with Staff and see if we can send those [inaudible] for the period [inaudible] that is May and June, and see where that leads us.  [inaudible] ask you whether this works for you, and how that affects our request for interpretation.

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Excuse me.  Thank you, Fiona.  The – as I said – to complete the request on our side, we need the schedule.  So I can’t put it in to the Co-Chairs for approval and then send it on to ICANN – ICANN Staff, if you will, or ICANN Org, as we’re calling it – so the request can be processed, until I have those dates.  So whatever process your subgroup wants to use here is completely in your hands – we’re not dictating – I’m just telling you that the reality is that I cannot put in a request for interpretation until we have those dates.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thanks, Bernard.  Yes, Renata?

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Thanks.  I was just wondering – so, Bernard, the following days you’ve put already on the chat for our next meeting, these are not available for interpretation. There needs to be a request made for May and June.  Is that correct?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: No, that is not correct.  If I get the schedule for May and June, I will endeavor to put in the request as quickly as I can, and if we get a response from ICANN that they will support it, they could start on the next meeting.  I’m not saying that the dates I’ve put there are exempt from interpretation; I’m just saying that up until the end of April, we’ve got those meetings booked.  I need May and June to put in a request.  When interpretation will start is independent of those things.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Renata, is that clear?

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: So I was wondering if we could then put the request in already for the next date, and another for May and June, or does it have to be only one?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: The problem is the following, Renata.  Depending on where the interpreters are located and the time, the cost can be significantly different, depending on the time and day we’re asking for it.  And as such, we don’t want to go back to this many times, because you might end up getting interpretation for a few calls and then while we go back to get approval again, then you’re going to miss a few, and everyone’s going to be upset.  So I think what we’re asking is the schedule until the end of June, and then we will put that in as a block, and once – if ICANN approves it – once it starts, it’s going to be for the rest of the year, period.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Renata?

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Fiona, thanks.  So I just commented there that I understand that it is indeed in our interests to get the schedule for May and June settled as soon as possible.  So I guess, Fiona, perhaps maybe it’s between you and Rafik to suggest a date.  If there is any date that the group wishes to change, they can do so on the list, perhaps?

 

FIONA ASONGA: I’ve lost you.

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Hi, I’m back.  Fiona, can you listen?

 

FIONA ASONGA: Yes, I can hear you.

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Okay, I will just repeat and try to be clearer.  I think that we need to put down the schedule for May and June as fast as we can, given what Bernard has explained to us, that it’s important to have an organized process on our request for translation.  So perhaps, Fiona, my suggestion would be that you and Rafik send to the list days with just the dates [inaudible] for May and June, and if the group feels that it’s important to change any dates strongly, they can do so writing directly to the Rapporteurs.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you, Renata.  I think that is clear, and thanks for allowing us to schedule the next call.  They are likely to be on Thursdays or Fridays, depending on which time zone you’re in.  And so, we will try and get this out to Bernard in the next couple of hours so that we are able to proceed.  And I think that is it on the meeting schedules and this document.  I’ll let you know.

Is there anything else from Copenhagen feedback that we need to discuss or share?  Yes, Julie?

 

JULIE HAMMER: Thank you, Fiona.  Just something that the [inaudible] in Copenhagen was concern about [inaudible] not just of the CCWG, but also of the various proposals in each subgroup is [inaudible].  And something that I’ve been thinking about for a while but haven’t [inaudible] for our document is [inaudible] our recommendation to establish an Office of Diversity is actually the best solution at this time.  The reason I’m questioning that is, we’ve immediately jumped to recommending a solution without having really collected a lot of information from the SO/ACs and without thinking through what really are the requirements that we’re trying to meet, and is establishing an office that [inaudible] resources really the best solution?  So, my takeaway in Copenhagen was perhaps in our report we should be looking at what actually needs to happen to further the inclusiveness and to further diversity within the various parts of ICANN, and not necessarily propose an organizational solution at this time.  So, I just wanted to put that on the table as something that others might want to discuss and react to.  Thank you, Fiona.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you, Julie.  Renata?

 

RENATA AQUINO RIBEIRO: Thank you, Fiona.  Thanks, Julie, for bringing this point.  I would like to echo the [inaudible] procedural steps for our group.  I have researched and at the last meeting, I have [inaudible] offices of diversity.  But I think that really, we have a procedure here, which is sending out the questionnaire, getting the information, finishing up our report, and then thinking widely about suggestions and the shapes that they’re taking.  I do see the concern on costs and on length of our work directed towards diversity.  I have the expression that if the work seems to be dragging on too long, it may be [inaudible]; it may be not taking into consideration [inaudible] it could be.  There has been a lot discussed in our meetings and in our documents.  So, I think we should focus on what we have on the table right now: the questionnaire and the report, as well, and then leave this discussion to a later part of the work.  Thanks.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you very much, Renata, for your input and feedback.  Avri?

 

AVRI DORIA: Hi.  Avri speaking.  While I agree that going so far as to recommend an organizational change in the creation of an office at this point will probably be premature for us and for the report, I don’t think it’s necessarily premature to think about there needing to be a function that deals with diversity at the organizational level and leaving it sort of open as to what that actually means.  I mean, unless we actually come to a conclusion that no, the organization itself doesn’t need to worry about it – which I kind of doubt we’ll arrive at – I think we could still keep the notion of there needing to be some function that deals with this within the formal organization.  So, that would be something I’d sort of ask to sort of keep on the table until we’re a little further down the road with it.  I wouldn’t want to see the whole idea erased from the possible proposals at this point, just like I don’t think we want to jump at a full-fledged organizational change at this point.  Thanks.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Bernard?

 

BERNARD TURCOTTE: Thank you.  Just a note to remind everyone that we did discuss the extension in Copenhagen.  The Co-Chairs are working with the PCST to – and ICANN Accounting and Finance – to complete the request so it can be posted as part of the budget public consultation, and then send a request to the chartering organization.  It is hoped that there will be support for an extension into FY 18.  Now, so you know, that is on one part to say, I think if we had Co-Chairs here, they would say there is no absolutely need to complete for the end of this fiscal year, which ends June 30; however, this being said, I think the point was quite well made by Renata.  Obviously, those that get recommendations in earlier will get more attention and will be able to, if you will, get more traction overall.  So, I’m not advocating to curtail your process in any way; I’m just trying to provide some [inaudible] background you can consider.  Thank you.

 

FIONA ASONGA: Thank you, Bernard.  So then, can we agree that as a team, drafting the report [inaudible], we will still leave in the recommendation as a placeholder, and even as it goes out, we will let the community know that it is a placeholder and we have yet to firm up on how that whole setup will be eventually structured, so that then we can allow time for further discussion to see whether or not it is a function within the [inaudible] or setting up [inaudible] part of the – from one organizational change that’s a whole new structure within ICANN.  And so, we leave it in.  My suggestion is that we leave it as a placeholder and make sure that our recommendation to the community is clear that it is a placeholder and we’ve not had extensive discussion on it yet to allow us to do that, and also think about it.  [inaudible] intervention, so we will not [inaudible] however, we shall be cognizant of the time and the fact that our recommendation would get better recognition in terms of [inaudible] location [inaudible] going [inaudible].  And we will [inaudible] to finish our [inaudible] in good time.  As you can see, we are still planning until June, [inaudible] hoping that we can [inaudible] by then.  [inaudible] try our very best to [inaudible] group [inaudible].  Any other issues anyone would like to raise?

Seeing no hands going up on the Adobe, I will take it that that’s it for our meeting today.  So, are we agreed for action items [inaudible] questionnaire [inaudible] to the main CCWG Plenary [inaudible] present it to them and [inaudible] on our meeting schedule so that we can have interpretation services as soon as possible.  And also [inaudible] that to the rest of the Working Group.  [inaudible] call for volunteers that you can add to the two that we have [inaudible] during the Copenhagen meeting [inaudible] drafting of the report and finalize that report and send to the Working Group the edited report.  And then in the report, [inaudible] leave in the recommendation of the diversity office as a placeholder and communicate that clearly in the report so that the community and everyone who reads it will know it’s a placeholder and will give us all time to be able to structure it appropriately.

And I think with that, we are done with this call.  Thank you so much for attending this call; for your time; for your input; for your day, your night, your evening.  Bye.

 

JULIE HAMMER: Thanks, everyone.  Bye.

 

U5: Thanks [CROSSTALK].  Bye.

 

 

 

[END OF TRANSCRIPTION]