Sure but personally my suggestion is that we work on any method that does not include the unneeded collection of PII without a specific purpose.
Our suggestion could merely be that the recommendations of the sub team can be made on external market research or observational analytics from ICANN registration at F2F meetings etc.
-James
-----Original Message-----
From: Renata Aquino Ribeiro [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 May 2017 17:48
To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [council] FW: [SOAC-Leaders] Fwd: SOACs Feedback on the Draft Gender Diversity & Participation Survey by 20 May
Hi
Suppose NCSG opts to oppose this survey and the rest of ICANN not.
Shouldn't NCSG come up with an alternative?
Best,
Renata
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:05 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My point is this will not be anonymous unless we are paying a research firm to conduct the survey for us.
>
> And if ICANN org is planning on conducting this, how do they plan to be in accordance with the PII they are collecting, how are they doing to manage their legal obligations, how do they plan on soring the conformation in line with European law?
>
> And back in the first place, why are we collecting this information at all, what defined purpose do we have for collection of such detailed personal information?
>
> In my mind we cannot stand here as the group in ICANN who advocate for privacy and limitation of data collection within ICANN and support a survey of this kind.
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renata Aquino Ribeiro [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 May 2017 17:01
> To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [SOAC-Leaders] Fwd: SOACs Feedback on the
> Draft Gender Diversity & Participation Survey by 20 May
>
> Hi
>
> It says "Confidential-Draft"
> That's all that this Confidential means - you're not supposed to
> answer the survey yet
>
> Until 20 May SO/ACs can send their comments on the questions of the
> survey
>
> From Stephanie's original message, members can send in comments on the
> list NCSG-DISCUSS and PC NCSG will submit a comment on the survey
> until 20 May
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1705&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=
> &X=FBDD34C6C12CF2F660&Y=raquino%40gmail.com&P=48908
>
> That is not to say that you have good questions, there, James
>
> This is a staff survey so I would think that the survey will be an
> anonymous form and the report drafted will be submitted for comment
> too
>
> But yes, there may be those who won't trust enough to submit their answers or will wonder about where their responses are going to end up.
>
> Would hiring an external consultant to do this address these concerns?
> Would it be effective to create a "safe space" to answer this survey?
>
> Personally, not sure on both answers.
>
> At least the conversation is starting.
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:40 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Woah everyone, let's take a step back here, who is going to collate and manage the responses to this questionnaire?
>>
>> This questionnaire is collecting extremely confidential PII and is most certainly not anonymous and confidential as stated in the document.
>>
>> Is this going to be managed by a competent research firm or is this to be analysed by ICANN org or whom?
>>
>> I have serious concerns about this process from a pure process point of view and from a European legal point of view.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> Sent: 05 May 2017 16:32
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [council] FW: [SOAC-Leaders] Fwd: SOACs Feedback on the
>> Draft Gender Diversity & Participation Survey by 20 May
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Mike, agree w/ all your edits
>>
>> Ayden, indeed sexual orientation is missing but I wonder if this
>> couldn't be a whole new other survey on LGBTQI in the community
>>
>> A few things I commented when the survey was in WS2 Div which had no support so did not make it to the final doc:
>>
>> - Young women - including the negative perception that young women
>> would exceptionally deemed unfit for leadership positions or looked
>> down
>>
>> - Regional perspective - Women from rural areas have to strive more
>> to be included, same for developing countries
>>
>> - Blockage of leadership positions - it is possible that there are
>> those who - not gender activists - feel blocked at leadership
>> positions due to gender or combined factors (gender+age,
>> gender+region
>> etc)
>>
>> - Race - another factor, which, if combined, could influence
>> perceptions
>>
>> Again, this was all discussed but isn't on the doc. I think it should be but...
>> Also there is a hope that cross-checking data - for instance - how different ages respond to each question - could provide some knowledge.
>>
>> I would rather see these combined factors phrased as stand-alone questions in themselves for clearer results.
>>
>> Cross-checking can work but one can also, as the saying goes, "torture data until it says what one wants"
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
|
