Corinne,
I support this letter. It is clear in both documenting concerns and
proposing improvements, and I agree with all of these concerns and
proposals.
Thank you!
Cheers,
--
Shane
At 2016-06-15 16:01:19 +0100
Corinne Cath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
|
