<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 14px;" lang="x-western">Hi Andrew,
<br>
<br>
I understand your point. However although we think we know what
diversity means, in reality the meaning of diversity is far more
complex - especially in the context of this group. I'm challenging
the notion that diversity means race/gender/and sexual
orientation. And there's religion which is the other invidious
class - odd no one mentioned religion. btw - my deity can kick you
deity's ass.
<br>
<br>
I think my definitions of diversity are more relevant than the
traditional one in this context.
<br>
<br>
On 1/31/2013 10:50 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Marc,
<br>
<br>
You seem to have missed the context of the discussion of
diversity. It arose
<br>
because of discussions of the GNSO endorsements of candidates
for the ATRT2
<br>
team. While Avri, Dan, myself and others have engaged in a
general discussion
<br>
of diversity, the issue I was posting on and that the others
taking this
<br>
question seriously seemed to me to be posting on, is the
question of required
<br>
diversity in bodies with specific authority or whose outputs are
likely to be
<br>
used to strongly and formally influence piolicy-making.
Voluntary membership
<br>
organisations such as NCUC/NCSG may also form an echo-chamber
and self-aware
<br>
people interested in equality, justice and fairness may seek to
put some
<br>
resources into outreach to disproportionately encourage new
members from
<br>
under-represented groups.
<br>
<br>
Your discussion about intelligence levels, US political leanings
and US
<br>
sports teams are rather off-the-point and in fact represent a
classic
<br>
misdirection argument about any form of attempting to improve
diversity of
<br>
representation.
<br>
<br>
If you haven't already seen it, I heartily recommend John
Scalzi's post on
<br>
"Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is":
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://tinyurl.com/cngqk4h">http://tinyurl.com/cngqk4h</a>
<br>
<br>
On this list we have good gender balance, some reasonable
representation from
<br>
developing countries and some other geographic diversity (though
I think the
<br>
only Japan-based members of the list are immigrant SWMs from the
UK or US,
<br>
but I might be mis-remembering, and I don't recall seeing any
Korean-based
<br>
posters - FYI Korea and Japan have some of the highest Internet
penetration
<br>
rates in the world, but are very unengaged in Internet
governance fora). But
<br>
we're just one constituency in ICANN and many of the others seem
far less
<br>
diverse and even with our diversity, it would be easy for the
formal bodies
<br>
of ICANN to end up unrepresentative, and therefore producing
poorer policies.
<br>
<br>
Forgive me for being concerned about such issues, but as an
information
<br>
ethicist, looking at the mechanisms creating and perpetuating
inequality in
<br>
information services is one of my research interests.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>