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