[council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
crg at isoc-cr.org
Tue Apr 19 22:44:55 UTC 2016
I want to restate my +1 to Paul´s comments very specifically on the way
he has phrased some issues questions
> I guess I have my doubts in general about this being the role of the
> GNSO Council.
me too
> Clearly, this is an important issue which affects all members of the
> ICANN community, and not just members of the GNSO.
exactly
> Wouldn't a simple letter (1) making note of the event, (2) making note
> of the lack of a clear policy, and (3) asking the Board to launch a
> CCWG to address this issue (if the Board believes that it and Staff
> together cannot or should not for some reason), be sufficient? I
> just don't see how the Council should be in the business of making
> specific policy recommendations without a policy process.
see under “picket fence”
> The Council is not a legislative body - our role is to play traffic
> cop to grass roots movements, right?
thats the way I see it and why I added my +1
>
>
> Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something here!
I miss clear guidelines from the Corporation on engagement rules for
participants in f2f meetings (like the ones we have in adobe connect
rooms).
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
>
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
>> Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>> From: Stephanie Perrin
>> <[stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)>
>> Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm
>> To: "[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)"
>> <[council at gnso.icann.org](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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)[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp](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)[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp](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](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"
>>> <[](mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz)[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](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:**[](mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org)[owner-council at gnso.icann.org](mailto: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
>>> <[](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com)[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)[http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke](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 14th.
>
> 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:**[](mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org)[owner-council at gnso.icann.org](mailto: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)[https://www.icann.org/news/blog/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)[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html](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)[https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings)
>
> [](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html](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
>
>>
>>
>>
More information about the council
mailing list