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