[council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Apr 6 23:21:16 UTC 2016 

Sure, Happy to do that Jenn.
Stephanie
On 2016-04-06 17:05, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
> Stephanie,
>
> In order to keep track of the current input from councilors, would you 
> be willing to redline the document with your suggested changes to 
> below and resend to the group?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jennifer
>
> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:32 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram 
> Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> and one more time....
> SP
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> 	
>
> Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> *Date: *
>
> 	
>
> Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:28:01 -0400
>
> *From: *
>
> 	
>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>
> *To: *
>
> 	
>
> Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com> 
> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> 
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz> 
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> 
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org> 
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
> I am sorry to be late with my feedback.  This is a great effort so 
> far, but I must say I find it a wee bit over the top.  Let me explain why:
>
>   * The list of offensive (inappropriate of unwanted) conduct is
>     exhaustive but not necessarily helpful.  "at a minimum" needs to
>     go, as Phil has pointed out.  The problem in harassment policies
>     in my view arises in the matter of how to determine "offensive"
>     now "inappropriate", particularly across cultures.  It would be
>     more helpful to expand on this, explaining the cross-cultural
>     nature of ICANN and give guidance on how to conduct oneself
>     /tentatively/.....eg. if you are Dutch and in the habit of
>     greeting people with three kisses, ask first.  I don't think we
>     want to shut down normal gestures of familiarity and affection,
>     but maybe we do....it is worth a discussion.  The other part that
>     needs to go unless you want us all to be tied into legal quandries
>     is this: "or any other category protected by any applicable
>     governing law". What are the laws of Finland on public deportment,
>     discrimination, etc. ?  Where do we go next, how do I check the
>     laws there?  I don't find this helpful. If you are going to
>     include language like this, we will have to have the already
>     burdened Constituency Travel send out advisories:  eg.  When in
>     Turkey, do not make jokes about Ataturk as it is forbidden by
>     law,  etc. etc.
>   * There needs to be a section discussing the rights of the accused,
>     and their rights to confidentiality.  It is my view that we need a
>     privacy policy more than a harassment policy, because I feel that
>     inappropriate conduct is in fact already covered by our acceptable
>     conduct policy, but here we are anyway.  The accused has a right
>     to have investigations conducted properly, and in confidence in my
>     view, so how that is going to take place, who does them, when the
>     accuser is permitted to go public,etc. needs quite a bit of work.
>
>   * "By participating in an ICANN conference, you agree to prohibit
>     harassment....."
>
> I actually think we should not demand that anyone who agrees to 
> participate in an ICANN conference should have to agree to take on the 
> role of enforcer of a harassment policy. Further on this:
>
> ·"You shall report any actions that you believe may violate our 
> policy no matter how slight the actions might seem".
>
> This is not necessary.  Anyone who experiences harassment ought to be 
> capable of determining themselves whether there was abuse, let us not 
> invite people to interfere with other people's jokes unless those 
> jokes are offending them, the listener.  In other words, I take no 
> offence at Michele N calling me a crazy tree-hugger, and I really 
> don't want to be dragged into Chris Lahatte's office to discuss it 
> just because someone overheard it and felt I ought to be offended.  
> Now if they are offended, (eg. they are a tree-hugger and are offended 
> at the suggestion that I ought to be considered in that group) they 
> can make their own complaint and leave me out of it.  In a policy such 
> as this, one has to be quite careful about how wide one opens the door.
>
> However, thanks to all who worked on this, it is very difficult to 
> craft a good harassment policy and enforcement mechanism, and my hat 
> is off to you on efforts so far. I would also like to apologize to 
> anyone whom I have either touched or kissed hello over the three years 
> I have been attending ICANN.  I meant no harm, I spent too much time 
> in Montreal (where we kiss everybody only twice) and I will strive to 
> be more guarded in future.
>
> I spent a year working in our central agency in the Canadian 
> Government, working on the ethics code and a limited time also on 
> evaluating workplace wellness (including harassment) policies and 
> implementation in the departments.  I like the Canadian approach, and 
> offer you the link here: 
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp. In 
> particular, the tools that help evaluate whether an act constitutes 
> harassment I think are useful: 
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp. 
> They put an emphasis on the activity needing to be repeated, or one 
> action to be extreme...this may be more applicable in a workplace 
> environment but I think the tests are nevertheless relevant.
>
> Cheers Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2016-04-06 15:00, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
>     James and Colleagues,
>
>     Thanks to Donna and Phil for their constructive feedback. With
>     that, please review and provide any additional feedback based on
>      the revised draft ‘ICANN Conference Harassment – Key Points
>     for Consideration’.
>
>     The attached addresses the following feedback received thus far,
>      in particular:
>
>     Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN
>     staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a
>     community ICANN attendee policy?
>
>     Included the following sentence: ‘The term “ICANN Conference
>     Attendees” includes event registered and non-registered
>     participants, sponsors, contractors, consultants, staff and board
>     members.’
>
>     This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive
>     (indicated by the words “At a minimum” that start the document)
>
>     Removed term “ At a minimum”
>
>     The use of the modifier “Offensive” at the start of sections
>     1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the
>     question “offensive to whom”? In this regard, I think there
>     must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior
>     subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the
>     cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to
>     situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may
>     nonetheless do so.
>
>     Replaced the word ‘ offensive’ with ‘unwanted’ or
>     ‘inappropriate’
>
>     A need to strictly define, and limit, the “prompt, appropriate
>     remedial action” that ICANN staff may take if they determine
>     that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are
>     the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and
>     whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should
>     be separate).
>
>     Change verbiage to state ‘ICANN staff is required to…’
>     instead of ‘may’
>
>     Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or
>     must report it.
>
>     Change the verbiage to sake of consistency. Opted for
>     ‘should/shall’ vs. ‘required/will’
>
>     The outstanding questions that James has outline should remain
>     included in the GNSO letter to ensure each item is addressed.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:57 PM
>     *To:* Jennifer Gore Standiford; Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; GNSO
>     Council List
>     *Subject:* Re: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Thanks Jennifer, Phil and Donna for weighing in.
>
>     Perhaps the concern is that we’ve called this document a
>     “draft” but it too closely resembles a finished policy.  I
>     believe (and I think Jennifer’s note confirms) that this was
>     intended to start a dialogue in whatever subsequent group
>     addresses this work, and a mechanism for relaying GNSO ideas,
>     questions and concerns in to that effort.
>
>     I appreciate the discussion, and hope that we can all get to a
>     place where we’re either comfortable with the draft, or we amend
>     it, or substitute it with something else.
>
>     Thanks—
>
>     *From: *Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford at web.com
>     <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
>     *To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz
>     <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
>     <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List
>     <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     *Subject: *RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Hi Phil and Colleagues,
>
>     Just a friendly reminder the attached document that was put forth
>     in the GNSO Letter to Akram was referred to as a draft. James also
>     included several questions that remain unanswered that will need
>     to be address in addition to the points that you and Donna have
>     raised.  As for Donna’s specific question, I would anticipate
>     that ICANN Conference Participants would be a defined term that
>     would include all ICANN staff and board members.
>
>     Jennifer
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:36 PM
>     *To:* Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Hi Phil
>
>     It’s a good point and also raises another one for me. Are Dr
>     Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff
>     policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a
>     community ICANN attendee policy?
>
>     Donna
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
>     *To:* James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
>     <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>; GNSO Council List
>     <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>     *Subject:* [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>     Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Thinking about this a bit more – how would this incident be
>     treated under any proposed Harassment Policy?
>
>     http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke
>
>     Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman
>     Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation
>     be required?
>
>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>
>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>
>     *Suite 1050*
>
>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>
>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>     **
>
>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>     *From:*Phil Corwin
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM
>     *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>     ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Colleagues:
>
>     I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject
>     and establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual
>     and other forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings.
>
>     However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such
>     harassment, I have some concerns about the proposed draft
>     Harassment Policy, relating to:
>
>     ·This very extensive list of potential offenses being
>     non-exclusive (indicated by the words “At a minimum” that
>     start the document)
>
>     ·The use of the modifier “Offensive” at the start of sections
>     1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the
>     question “offensive to whom”? In this regard, I think there
>     must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior
>     subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the
>     cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to
>     situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may
>     nonetheless do so.
>
>     ·A need to strictly define, and limit, the “prompt, appropriate
>     remedial action” that ICANN staff may take if they determine
>     that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are
>     the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and
>     whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should
>     be separate).
>
>     ·Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who
>     believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or
>     must report it.
>
>     I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on our
>     call of April 14^th .
>
>     Best regards, Philip
>
>     *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
>     *Virtualaw LLC*
>
>     *1155 F Street, NW*
>
>     *Suite 1050*
>
>     *Washington, DC 20004*
>
>     *202-559-8597/Direct*
>
>     *202-559-8750/Fax*
>
>     *202-255-6172/Cell*
>
>     **
>
>     *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>     */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>     *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>     <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
>     [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel
>     *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 PM
>     *To:* GNSO Council List
>     *Subject:* [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
>     re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>     Council Colleagues —
>
>     Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the
>     Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post
>     (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”
>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings).
>
>     In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that
>     support further work in this area, without weighing in on any
>     specific indecent.  Also, the letter references a statement from
>     the NCUC ExCom (“Statement from NCUC Executive Committee”
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)
>     and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers
>     (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials.
>
>     If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call
>     on 14 APR.  We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to
>     proceed.
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     J.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Akram Atallah
>
>     COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>
>     Dear Akram –
>
>     On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for
>     your recent blog post (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”).  Members
>     of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
>     Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the
>     community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an
>     environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated.
>
>     Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are
>     encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage
>     the community on this subject.
>
>     In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a
>     draft (“ICANN Conference Harassment Policy”, attached).
>     Several questions remain open, however, including:
>
>     ?Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the
>     existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy
>
>     ?Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the
>     Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group
>
>     ?How the policy will be enforced, and
>
>     ?Other topics and questions that will arise from this work.
>
>     We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in
>     this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in
>     their own groups (“Statement from NUCU Executive Committee”).
>     We urge this group to consider these materials in any community
>     undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue.
>
>     Thank you
>
>     Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>     James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>
>     Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>     https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings
>
>     http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     No virus found in this message.
>     Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=>
>     Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date:
>     04/02/16
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160406/f050c609/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list