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