[discuss] [] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING

Fri May 2 10:29:29 UTC 2014

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

it is worth noting that gender imbalance is not similar in all
stakeholder categories. Whilst it is acute in the Academic/Technical
community, there is actually a pretty good balance in Civil Society. I
would therefore argue that gender balance would be easier to achieve in
some Stakeholder groups than in others and that each Stakeholder group
needs to address this separately because the imbalance might indeed be
caused by different factors depending on the Stakeholder group.
For example, in the technical community, the imbalance starts at school
level with the lack of girls oriented towards engineering and sciences.
In the private sector, I would say the Glass Ceiling is still very much
in place. etc.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 02/05/2014 10:11, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> It's a question for the reformulation of the entire life work balance of modern societies. This
is a generational reformation. For this list it may be worth observing
that the gender imbalance as reported does prove the point that current
Internet Governance (IG) circus is not representative and this increases
the risks that current IG frameworks may well produce unstable results.
>
> Taking that point into mind suggests that formulations of IG need
flexibility as representational changes grow. We should not "hard code"
but leave the weight to empower the bottom up processes rather than from
the top down.
>
>
> Christian
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 02/05/2014 08:25, Patrick Ryan wrote:
>>> At risk of getting a little off topic, but that we don?t lose
>>> the plot on this, one of the things that I heard many times
>>> in the hallway at NETmundial was the need to address gender
>>> issues in the area of Internet governance.  This wasn?t
>>> something that was addressed in any of the plenary sessions
>>> (to my recollection), but I had no less than a half dozen
>>> hallway conversations about it. It?s a good IGF question
>>> (because of the broad mandate that the IGF has for various
>>> policy matters) and I?m working with colleagues in the MAG to
>>> see if we can fold this into one of the work areas this year
>>> in Istanbul.  However, it?s something that we should also
>>> consider on a broader basis.
>>>
>>> If my back-of-the envelope analysis is right on the
>>> statistics of 1Net postings that came out recently, there are
>>> only three women that factor in any of the ?top 20?
>>> categories listed (Marilyn, Avri, Andrea).  We seem to have
>>> done really well to assure that the voice in the governance
>>> discussion are distributed better geographically, but there?s
>>> greenfield ahead in ensuring that the voices are more
>>> balanced in terms of gender.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't think it's greenfield at all. I was first
>> asked about this topic in public in early 1995, I think, at the
>> "Geneva Internet Day" that introduced the Internet as an
>> opportunity to the UN organisations (and the public) in Geneva.
>>
>> Also unfortunately, my answer today is pretty much the same. You
>> see gender imbalance in these discussions *because* it exists in
>> network engineering and management in general. Those of us here
>> are chosen, or self-chosen, from an unbalanced population. Which
>> of course goes back to the measured fact that women progress
>> less than men in higher education and careers in science and
>> engineering in general.
>>
>> That doesn't mean it's OK. It's just that I am very pessimistic
>> about improving things except by working on a much earlier
>> career stage than many of us here have reached.
>>
>>> I don?t pretend to have answers for this, and I also find
>>> that wading into these waters can be complicated. 
>>
>> Indeed.
>>     Brian
>>
>>> It?s a
>>> zone where I put foot-in-mouth more than once.  Still, I
>>> think it?s something for us to keep our eye on as we consider
>>> the broader ?meaning and application of equal footing.?
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga
> FBCS, CITP, MCMA
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

- -- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTY3OJAAoJENb2Jfn69hcjfykIANxLjB41Hm70Ls1bL6TAQChH
NGHoVnsYBlAju0RXADQBi4m0sLuRMeQ4n3aaSU4da6A+NMz0cw5GgVEPCDjvpjsp
CRfUMAKJaly8kuuU/NKxtZ67VCaheE5k2qYExkMqUYQUxbPGi8aPRFmT/xNYLnIg
Ff/c+OO/RiAKgr4yX2Njhp1TWKupkAHaP6Wr5po4GyqBVkptjtZSM1hY6rIISi6O
qADKg5gI+PbdlOjTz+m0OBI98dxECetsxA2yrTWLMxPUJAEq5fM+xjeqeeJ0e8S/
0F9/eMH0p0r3npS/JuffDVa8i2z/Xk+Y6K+WnE1PWRqiGDOxvUJQF+IFcwm23gE=
=UURV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140502/d047dad8/attachment-0001.html>