This might be relevant to the discussion:
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-new-normal-codes-of-conduct-in-2015-and-beyond
Who in the PC can I work with to draft the next iteration of the NCSG
statement?
Best,
Niels
On 06/06/2016 02:10 PM, Karel Douglas wrote:
> Drafting words and sentences into clear understandable policy may
> actually be the least of the headaches.
>
> The ICANN community is so diverse that I suspect the real headache will
> be to navigate the choppy waters of diverse views and to create a policy
> that we can all agree to.
>
> I'm particularly aware of Farzaneh's comment as what is "acceptable" in
> one jurisdiction is often not acceptable in another. The social norms
> that some people take for granted in meetings are considered as
> unwelcome and offensive to others. It is thus difficult to find mutual
> ground and understanding that is acceptable to all. Once we do then we
> can hammer out appropriate language.
>
> regards
>
> Karel
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:34 AM, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> I have said this in the pad Niels shared, will say it here again:
>
> The public comment announcement says :"It was determined
> by ICANN Board that revisions to the language of the Expected
> Standards of Behavior is needed that align with generally accepted
> board standards for areas of protection and recommended that the
> revised version be posted for public comment.
>
> /Additional work, such as retention of an expert to assist in a
> policy and procedure to guide when potentially improper behavior is
> reported, is also under way." /(emphasis added by me)
>
> So obviously what you see is not the finished work. They are going
> to come up with the procedure. But Board , wants to tell the
> community that it is working on it. It does not want the community
> to shout at it and say you are ignoring us again. which is a wrong
> strategy but ... This is my take. So I really think we should wait
> for the procedure to also be published.
>
> As a non-geek feminist I find the geek feminist policy too broad and
> not well defined with no consideration or solution for conferences
> where there are different people with different cultures. And the
> policy is not even finalized. people can just go and add concerns to
> the policy! What is a sexual image? what is an "inappropriate"
> sexual contact? we are in a diverse community. Something that is
> sexual for someone might not be for someone else. In some countries
> almost everything a woman does is interpreted as sexual and she can
> be arrested for it! so I think this policy is not really suitable
> for a diverse community. It can even work against us. They can
> censor images and say it's sexual.( I am just giving you the worst
> case scenario).
>
> I just think we should say yes Boared, good that you are working on
> it, so work on the rest quickly so that we can comment on the whole
> thing. If we are worried that the board doesnt change the SH
> standard text, then we just tell them we want to see everything
> together and then comment on the work and we do not want the text to
> be perceived as finalized at this stage.
>
>
>
> On 6 June 2016 at 05:41, Shane Kerr <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Avri,
>
> At 2016-06-01 13:24:39 -0400
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|
