Hi

MM:
> Here are some modifications to make to the policy to rectify this problem. One thing we can certainly agree on: STRIKE the sentence "No corroboration is required to >support a finding." What an astounding statement! The Ombuds can make a finding without any need for evidence? What possible reason could there be for including this? >It has to go. We could also move to strike the phrase "in the Ombudsperson’s discretion" wherever it appears.

I agree

SK:
>> I REALLY LIKE the list documenting what harassment is. As I understand it,
>> that is best practice in codes of conduct these days. It makes it better for
>MM:
> I don't. I think the list is absurd. Also, keep  in mind that it "include[s], but are not limited to" the list of things, so it's entirely open-ended.

And there is an elephant in the room that we have not spoken about here.

In ICANN57, a public forum speaker from the audience, from this
community, was incredibly stalked in and out of the public forum, on
other list too, and it culminated w/ a request - public and privately
conducted by a group - to have the contribution striked from ICANN's
public records!
Attempts to disqualify or intimidate someone just because you don't
like what they are saying also constitute harrassment.
In my view, way more harmful harassment than the some of the horrible
list contained in this policy.

So let's take this situation. How would this work if this policy was
effective? Or ICANN's current standards, for that matter.
Proactive action did not occur. Not even records, I believe, from the
ombuds part.
Could the ombuds do anything other than be a sympathetic ear if any of
the parties decided to contact about this?
If action was needed, such as issuing a statement about public records
not being "deletable" or investigating and recommending a restriction
order or even a community ban, could the ombuds do it?
Does not seem likely.
Nothing would happen.
Nothing did happen.

So, I am clear to the fact the the ombuds has no power to proceed to
effect measures on harassment charges and is inherently bound by
obligation to safeguard ICANN, not its community members.
However, i am not sure who could do this. I don't think it is HR too
as they also represent staff and are bound by obligation to defend
them and supervise them.
So I see a need of third party, maybe a committee, to be selected to
deal with such matters.
The existence of this committee does not substitute the participation
of ombuds and HR or even law enforcement when they are necessary to
reach a conclusion.

Best,

Renata