Thanks, Corinne, the letter looks excellent and I fully support it,
especially your call for clear definitions of harassment concepts.
Everyone, here are the main recommendations made:
"A guiding document is vital to the effectiveness of the revisions proposed
in the Expected Standards of Behavior. The document must include clear
definitions of the different concepts mentioned, detailing the process for
remediation. It must focus on the actual behavior of individuals as well as
the general culture of inclusion we should have at ICANN."
- Beth
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:40 PM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Corinne,
> Looks in much better shape, I made some small suggestions on the google
> doc.
>
> -James
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Corinne
> Cath <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Corinne Cath <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday 15 June 2016 at 16:01
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of
> Behaviors
>
> 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
>
--
Beth Goldberg
|
