Corinne, I support this letter. It is clear in both documenting concerns and proposing improvements, and I agree with all of these concerns and proposals. Thank you! Cheers, -- Shane At 2016-06-15 16:01:19 +0100 Corinne Cath <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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] > > 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]> 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]>> 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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> | T: +44.771.247.2987 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > > > -- > Corinne J.N. Cath