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). Brett hit the nail on the head – what are the consequences for violating these Standards? 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. 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. No 'conference harassment policy' is going to have meaningful community buy-in unless culture changes. 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. 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] 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] > 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] | T: +44.771.247.2987 Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest