Dear all,
I trust this email finds you well. I redrafted the letter on the basis of
the discussion on the list and on the etherpad.
You can find it here on the google doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kb-LVkR-JSEA00aiHej5lNWWB49ASU8pNuxoSGaD85g/edit
Please have a look, I hope with these changes we can adopt it as a NCSG
public comment.
Best,
Corinne
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:
> Dear Ayden,
>
> On 06/03/2016 08:13 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> > I tried responding on the pad, but it will not save my comments.
> >
> > I don't have a hard objection to the NCSG responding to this
> > consultation – indeed, I believe we should be submitting responses
> > whenever we are given the opportunity – but the drafted response is not
> > one that I can support.
> >
> > What I see in the proposed revisions to the Expected Standards of
> > Behaviour is a prime example of how you can change policy without
> > changing practice (perhaps changing policy can even be a way of not
> > changing practice? or maybe I shouldn't be so cynical).
>
> Don't the two go hand in hand?
>
> > Brett hit the
> > nail on the head – what are the consequences for violating these
> > Standards?
>
> Am now completely unclear whether you would like enforcement (as Brett
> argued), or not.
>
> > And as Dorothy said, let's have some clarity and define these
> > terms, because Marrakesh showed us that definitions of harassment can
> > vary significantly from person to person.
> >
> > If I understand the point that Avri raised, that we would be best placed
> > considering this issue in depth once we have more clarity around Work
> > Stream 2, then I agree – but what choice did the Board have? 'We' asked
> > that they institute changes immediately. Like cement we asked that
> > changes be set before they harden. The problems and the complexities
> > will not be clear immediately. Let us instead take our time and
> > thoughtfully and collaboratively confront sexual harassment.
>
> Are you saying that earlier contributions have not been thoughtful?
>
> >
> > This is essential because I have heard some NCSG members speak of sexual
> > harassment as though it is an organisational problem, which in my view
> > it isn't. It is possibly one of community culture, but if we accept
> > that, we can't just push this back to ICANN to somehow deal with. I
> > don't want a return to the Victorian moral panic of the 1880s, I don't
> > want ICANN inhibiting anyone's free speech to satisfy a few special
> > interests.
>
> I am very surprised that you relate Victorian moral panic to
> anti-harassment policy. Perhaps you should try to have a look at the
> issue from a non-male perspective.
>
> Secondly, I don't think anti-harassment is not a in the interest of a few.
>
> > No 'conference harassment policy' is going to have meaningful
> > community buy-in unless culture changes.
>
> Chicken - egg, but we already discussed this point above.
>
> > We need to tread carefully and
> > think about how we want this to happen: personally, I'd be uncomfortable
> > with the idea of a working group of self-appointed members working to
> > impose their moral norms over the entire community.
> >
> > There is no need to rush through any changes to policy ahead of
> > Helsinki. If anything, I feel like WE are more at fault here than ICANN
> > as an organisation is. WE are not respecting the processes already in
> > place to deal with sexual harassment, such as making contact and
> > collaborating with the Ombudsman. WE have not been standing true to our
> > principles of advocating for privacy by naming on public listservs the
> > names of alleged perpetrators. When we behave in the manner that we have
> > and threaten the organisation's reputation, the only reasonable response
> > from ICANN can be one of damage limitation, which gets us nowhere.
> >
>
> Funny that you talk about everything here, except victims.
>
> > ICANN has been very responsive to the concerns raised by the community,
> > and so in our response to this consultation, I would suggest that we
> > praise the Board in the strongest terms for making revisions to the
> > Expected Standards of Behaviour a matter of priority, but ask that we be
> > given more time as a community to think about what changes we really
> > want to see. After all, a harassment policy should not become a means
> > for some to harass others with differing perspectives.
> >
> > Ayden
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 11:54 AM, Matthew Shears [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > __ + 1 Avri and Tatiana
> >
> > On 6/1/2016 9:47 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> >> + 1 to Avri,
> >> I think this is my problem with this public comment draft (and I
> >> left several comments about this in the doc). We do need more, but
> >> some of the issues require more time for elaboration. I don't
> >> think we can criticise ICANN for the fact that we haven't got more
> >> yet, when the document we are commenting on says that the work is
> >> in progress.
> >> So agree with the positive comment that will say that it's good
> >> start but there is definitely an important work to be done further.
> >> Cheers
> >> Tanya
> >>
> >> On 1 June 2016 at 19:24, avri doria <[log in to unmask]
> >> <mailto:[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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> >> software.
> >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights
> Project
> > Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
> > E: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | T: +44.771.247.2987
> >
> >
> >
> > Ayden Férdeline
> > Statement of Interest
> > <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ayden+Férdeline+SOI
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ayden+F%C3%A9rdeline+SOI>>
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>
--
Corinne J.N. Cath
|
