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]>
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]> wrote:
>
>> Avri,
>>
>> At 2016-06-01 13:24:39 -0400
>> avri doria <[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
>