On 11/16/2016 07:36 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > I also think we need a procedure for dealing with vexatious complaints. This has been a concern coming back and back and back again whereas reality shows this hardly ever happens. Doing this will just dissuade people from reporting. In the US now there is even a self proclaimed sex-offender president-elect. Saying that this will be used to harm peoples career seems overstated to say the least. Let's not blame the victims. > > Ayden Férdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline> > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy >> Comment Period >> Local Time: 15 November 2016 9:55 PM >> UTC Time: 15 November 2016 21:55 >> From: [log in to unmask] >> To: [log in to unmask] >> >> Here are some of my views on the Anti-harassment policy >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > My main concern with the proposed policy is the role of the ombudsperson >> > [snip] It seems to grant complete and arbitrary >> > power to a single individual. >> >> I agree, and the current interim ombudsman has a demonstrated tendency >> to arbitrary and biased behavior. >> Here are some modifications to make to the policy to rectify this >> problem. One thing we can certainly agree on: STRIKE the sentence "No >> corroboration is required to support a finding." What an astounding >> statement! The Ombuds can make a finding without any need for >> evidence? What possible reason could there be for including this? It >> has to go. We could also move to strike the phrase "in the >> Ombudsperson’s discretion" wherever it appears. >> >> > No discussion is made for privacy of any of the participants in the >> procedure >> > description. I don't have any recommendations here, but it seems like it >> > should be explicitly addressed. >> >> Not a helpful observation unless you do have a recommendation to make. >> >> > I REALLY LIKE the list documenting what harassment is. As I >> understand it, >> > that is best practice in codes of conduct these days. It makes it >> better for >> >> I don't. I think the list is absurd. Also, keep in mind that it >> "include[s], but are not limited to" the list of things, so it's >> entirely open-ended. >> One obvious problem with the list is that some of the bullet points >> have no reference to whether the conduct is undesired or not. >> Specifically, bullets 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8. >> "Kissing, fondling, hugging, stroking someone’s hair, or brushing >> against another’s body" is perfectly OK if the person on the receiving >> end wants it. It is nonsensical to declare categorically that these >> behaviors constitute "harassment" irrespective of whether the people >> involved are, say, married or otherwise consenting. >> >> I am also puzzled by the statement "This Policy is not intended to >> impede or inhibit free speech." While I wholeheartedly support the >> sentiment behind that qualification, it is placed as a footnote >> appended to the title, rather than fully incorporated into the policy. >> >> The policy should also explicitly recognize that anti-harassment >> policies can themselves be used to harass or intimidate people, or >> exploited to silence critics. >> >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> Professor, School of Public Policy >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org/ >> >> >> > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9