Hi Corinne,
Looks in much better shape, I made some small suggestions on the google doc.
-James
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Corinne Cath <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Corinne Cath <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Wednesday 15 June 2016 at 16:01
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]>
> <mailto:[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]>
>> <mailto:[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<http://cdt.org>
> E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> | T: +44.771.247.2987<tel:%2B44.771.247.2987>
>
>
>
> 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<http://www.article19.org>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
--
Corinne J.N. Cath
|
