Avri,

At 2016-06-01 13:24:39 -0400
avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 31-May-16 15:58, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > From what I can read, I would not support the proposed policy.   
> 
> I find myself agreeing with the comment that we will eventually need
> something more.
> And I think that RFC7704 is a good model.

For an organization with more lawyers than most nations, I find ICANN's
proposed text shockingly amateur. Code of conducts are something that
conference organizers have come up with quite clear best practices over
the past few years. (Actually in retrospect it is probably not
surprising... unclear rules means fertile ground for expensive legal
debate, so is probably where the trained legal mind naturally prefers
to go.) ;)

I actually think that RFC 7704 is not a very good model, at least as
far as an anti-harassment policy. It is interesting and informative,
but not normative - it does not clearly state what is a problem and
what can be done about it.

The Geek Feminism wiki, referenced in the Riseup Pad, is much better
because it recommends clearly documenting what is abuse, how to report
it, and what the consequences are. In fact, the Geek Feminism wiki is
probably close to best practice in in this area.

Basically, I find the proposed letter on the Riseup Pad to be
reasonable, as I understand it to say "thanks for the attempt, ICANN,
but it's shit and here are a bunch of ways to make it better".

> But I think getting into that issue before we resolve wider 
> accountability issues WS2 (e.g. ombudsman, or SOAC accountabity)  of the
> CCWG-Accountabity is impracticable.    I would suggest a statement that
> said good start, lets go with this for now, and determine after WS2,
> perhaps in next ATRT, whether more needs to be done. Some element of the
> issue could probably also feed into WS2 work.

It is not clear to me what you are proposing. Are you suggesting that
the NCSG not take any action on the harassment policy?

If that is your suggestion, I have to disagree.

Or is your proposal that NCSG say "please hold off on finalizing the
harassment policy until we have time to help with it"?

If that is your suggestion, this seems somewhat sensible.

It may be interpreted as us wanting to delay adoption of a policy;
there is nothing we can do about that. It may call out NCSG as a weak
link in policy making. But, honestly, if we are a weak link due to
resource constraints then there is no harm in admitting it.

Cheers,

--
Shane