On 11/16/2016 07:36 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> I also think we need a procedure for dealing with vexatious complaints.

This has been a concern coming back and back and back again whereas
reality shows this hardly ever happens. Doing this will just dissuade
people from reporting. In the US now there is even a self proclaimed
sex-offender president-elect. Saying that this will be used to harm
peoples career seems overstated to say the least. Let's not blame the
victims.


> 
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
> 
> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy
>> Comment Period
>> Local Time: 15 November 2016 9:55 PM
>> UTC Time: 15 November 2016 21:55
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Here are some of my views on the Anti-harassment policy
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > My main concern with the proposed policy is the role of the ombudsperson
>> > [snip] It seems to grant complete and arbitrary
>> > power to a single individual.
>>
>> I agree, and the current interim ombudsman has a demonstrated tendency
>> to arbitrary and biased behavior.
>> 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.
>>
>> > No discussion is made for privacy of any of the participants in the
>> procedure
>> > description. I don't have any recommendations here, but it seems like it
>> > should be explicitly addressed.
>>
>> Not a helpful observation unless you do have a recommendation to make.
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> 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.
>> One obvious problem with the list is that some of the bullet points
>> have no reference to whether the conduct is undesired or not.
>> Specifically, bullets 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8.
>> "Kissing, fondling, hugging, stroking someone’s hair, or brushing
>> against another’s body" is perfectly OK if the person on the receiving
>> end wants it. It is nonsensical to declare categorically that these
>> behaviors constitute "harassment" irrespective of whether the people
>> involved are, say, married or otherwise consenting.
>>
>> I am also puzzled by the statement "This Policy is not intended to
>> impede or inhibit free speech." While I wholeheartedly support the
>> sentiment behind that qualification, it is placed as a footnote
>> appended to the title, rather than fully incorporated into the policy.
>>
>> The policy should also explicitly recognize that anti-harassment
>> policies can themselves be used to harass or intimidate people, or
>> exploited to silence critics.
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://internetgovernance.org/
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9