Well said David,
I was just clarifying the process of this particular review team selection round - gender diversity was not an issue here, because no matter what the outcome of the process overall, within NCSG our two applicants were both women, and so NCSG was always going to satisfy the gender diversity requirement of the council process.Personally, I think gender diversity quotas do have a valid role to play in an institutional context. Luckily NCSGs wealth of talent is already pretty gender diverse, so gender diversity requirements are generally positive for us - and personally, I'm very pleased to be working alongside so many exceptional women in the NCSG leadership team. But if you doubt that systemic gender bias can be an issue, you don't need to look that far beyond NCSG to find it, especially in the tech industry generally.I'm in favour of ICANN trying to encourage gender and geographical (and other forms) of diversity.CheersDavidOn 31/01/2013, at 8:23 AM, Carl Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Thanks David,
I have no problem with the geographic point, but If our best choice is a woman then what is the problem? To me, the one of whom we have the greatest confidence is who will serve our joint interests best. I look to the minds and hearts of those I support. There are still bigots in the world and surely that will continue to need addressing. Though often hidden from view. If the females of the world are to be our leaders because they have the right stuff, we are better for that. Are men afraid of loosing their machismo?
Sorry for the rant, but I see this gender thing as demeaning to those who have worked to get to the position which they have rightfully earned.
Respectfully,
Lou
On 1/30/2013 12:37 PM, David Cake wrote:
FWIW, only one GNSO endorsed candidate was required to meet gender diversity requirements, and both applicants from NCSG were women, so NCSG was inevitably going to meet the gender diversity requirements for the council, and so gender diversity was not at issue for this selection. One applicant from the Registries was a woman, but they did not choose to advance them as a candidate for endorsements.
The diversity requirement that is relevant to the council endorsement decision was geographical diversity - we have ended up with four GNSO endorsed candidates from North America. There was an option for the council to endorse two extra candidates to satisfy geographical diversity requirements, one each from NCSG (Marie-Laure) and CSG, but the contracted parties did not vote for it.
RegardsDavid
On 30/01/2013, at 8:38 AM, Carl Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks Bill,
Is this a solution looking for a problem or is there a problem of which I am unaware. Seems to me, we have tried to get the representation with confidence in mind. I know we talked about diversity with agreement. But if our best representation is not of the right sex......? I for one just want our consensus to be aggressively pursued by whom ever we feel most confident. I never got the impression any of us was a bigot. We have a liberty minded group, I believe.
Respectfully,
Lou
On 1/29/2013 9:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
Hi Alain
The process agreed agreed June 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/aoc-reviews is that
"If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN."
So the additional nominees would be of the GNSO general