[council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Apr 21 21:25:51 UTC 2016
Whatever folks wish.
SP
On 16-04-21 5:21 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Thanks for your editing Stephanie! It makes the letter much more
> effective. I'd like to get this done ASAP as well but I do have
> problems referring to only one organisation and a specific policy as a
> reference marker, particularly the IETF's.
> There are several aspects of the IETF policy I don't agree with (such
> as possible banning of offenders) and I believe that the policy
> itself would be illegal for a California public benefit corporation
> to adopt. Without dragging folks into a tedious legal analysis, I
> would note that the Declaration of Rights of the California
> Constitution has been held to apply to private firms if expressed in
> the affirmative (such as article 1, section 2, which refers to free
> speech; the affirmative expression of California speech rights
> differentiating it from the negative expression of such rights in the
> first amendment of the US Constitution) (/Prunegard Shopping //Center
> /being the defining case extending such rights to private firms and
> facilities) and combined with California's expansive long arm statute
> (CA Civ Pro §410.10) could invalidate such a policy. While I did not
> oppose including the IETF policy and process when our proposed
> submission included multiple reference markers, including one
> developed internally, I am uncomfortable issuing a statement
> referencing only one policy because that could be perceived as a
> direct endorsement of Council. That the policy referenced may be
> illegal is also be a problem.
> Stephanie, would an alteration to your bullet point, such as the one
> that follows, be acceptable?:
> Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder
> character as an institution, would it be useful to consider how other
> comparable organisations, such as the IETF, have dealt with
> establishing similar policies?
> I'd be fine with that.
> Thanks for considering,
> Ed
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Jennifer Gore Standiford" <JStandiford at web.com>
> *Sent*: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:43 PM
> *To*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>,
> "egmorris1 at toast.net" <egmorris1 at toast.net>, "James M. Bladel"
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>,
> "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> G." <crg at isoc-cr.org>
> *Subject*: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
> re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> Thanks Stephanie. Your additional bullet point below is acceptable to
> me. Does anyone else have additional thoughts? It would be great to
> close this out quickly.
>
> *From:*Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:23 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Gore Standiford; egmorris1 at toast.net; James M. Bladel;
> Marilia Maciel; council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc:* Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
> *Subject:* Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
> re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> I caught a couple of typos Jenn, and I would like to propose one
> addition....many of our members agree with Avri's suggestion (which I
> had included in the appendix, list of other resources) that we talk to
> the IETF, and look at their policy which they have recently
> completed. So I added another bullet for your consideration, Changes
> marked in *Bold*.
> Given the rather thorough trashing my late suggestions have already
> received, please feel free to completely ignore this contribution.
> Just trying to help....
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 16-04-21 1:10 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts by the council members
> regarding the draft letter to Akram on the subject of Harassment.
> After reaching what seems to be an agreement to exclude the
> attachment, I believe the pendulum has swung too far the other way
> by removing key content contained within James’ drafted letter.
> Please see a revised version of his letter below (with no
> attachment). I urge my peers to reach an agreement soon, so that
> the GNSO offers a voice on this issue while the topic remains
> relevant. - Jennifer
>
> Akram Atallah
>
> COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>
> Dear Akram
>
> On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you 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 ICANN community members
> (shall)*are able to* participate and contribute within an
> environment that does not tolerate discrimination and*remains
> *free of harassment. 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. When considering a
> policy to address this area, we respectfully ask for consideration
> regarding these key questions:
>
> ·Would a policy enhance the current ‘Expected Standards of
> Behavior’ or remain independent?
>
> ·How would reporting procedures be defined and*who* would be
> included in the reporting structure i.e. ICANN Staff, Office of
> the Ombudsman, or other entity?
>
> ·What mechanism would be in place to *enforce* the policy and
> protect those involved *in* known incidents?
>
> * *Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder
> character as an institution, would it be useful to consider how
> other comparable organizations have dealt with reporting and
> enforcement? We understand that the IETF has recently gone
> through a similar exercise, and it might be useful to reach out to
> them for ideas, both for process and substance. The new policy is
> here
> **https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/04/team-to-help-regarding-harassment-concerns/***
>
> **
>
> We call upon the GNSO community to engage and participat*e,* as we
> anticipate additional topics and questions will arise from these
> efforts. It is worth noting that other groups have begun work in this
> area (Statement from NCUC Executive Committee). We urge ICANN staff
> to incorporate these initial questions during the commencement of this
> exercise. *We* all agree that a new policy must ensure a healthy
> environment for all.
>
> Thank you
>
> Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
> James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>
> Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
> *From:*owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Edward Morris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:13 PM
> *To:* James M. Bladel; Marilia Maciel
> *Cc:* Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.; Stephanie Perrin;
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
> re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I must admit I'm not very happy with the way this conversation has
> gone. To be clear, I'm not too pulsed by the policy disagreements. I
> am a bit perturbed, though, at the timing of many of the
> contributions. We're better than this.
>
> Let me first extend my thanks and appreciation to Jennifer for her
> leadership and hard work on this effort. In the four plus years I have
> been involved with ICANN I can not recall ever having worked with
> someone whose passion, knowledge, competence and expertise I have come
> to so admire. I am honoured and humbled to serve on the same Council
> as she.
>
> I would also like to thank James, for his tireless effort to try to
> bring this matter to a conclusion.
>
> The small group proposal was posted to the Council list on 6 April.
> Stephanie, to her credit, was the only Councillor to indicate
> widespread dissatisfaction with the small group proposal between the
> time it was posted and our call on the 14th: the expected date of
> agreement and dispatch. I appreciate the preambles of many of those
> who weighed in late on the matter acknowledging the work of the small
> group who put together the initial proposal, but I'm not a big fan of
> those who weigh in last minute to criticise work they themselves chose
> not to participate in or object to in a timely manner. This matter
> obviously needed conversation but because of the lateness of most of
> the objections we didn't have time for that. We need to do better in
> the future and I'm sure we will.
>
> There is a proposed GNSO public comment on the FY17 budget and
> operating plan a few of us have worked on that is still out for work.
> There is a hard deadline of 30 April for submission. I believe we've
> set a deadline a few days earlier for objections, contributions and
> comments. It's still a skeleton paper and could use more meat.
> Contributions are not only welcome but are needed. I only ask you, my
> colleagues, to do your best to please voice any objections sooner
> rather than later. It's not good for the quality of discussion nor
> respectful to those of us who put together the initial documents to
> jump in with wholesale objections at deadline. Thank you for your
> consideration.
>
> As for the matter at hand:
>
> 1. There was never any attempt to create or signify GNSO policy in the
> initial proposal. Rather we were trying to include "reference markers"
> to possible policies. One was created by the small team, improved upon
> with suggestions by others. There were references to other external
> policies that we thought staff and board might want to consider. I
> have disagreements, some substantial, with each of the reference
> markers save the one we created. I did not object to their inclusion
> in the letter because I recognised what they were: markers, not
> concrete proposals.
>
> 2. I support the approach of the Business Constituency in a more
> specific form. My preference would be for the Board to ask ICANN Legal
> to draft a conference harassment policy, post the proposed policy for
> public comment and then have the Board act accordingly. I
> have complete confidence John Jeffrey and his team could and would
> produce a substantive policy proposal that we all could and would support.
>
> 3. I do not support the creation of a CCWG in this matter. Please see
> point 2 for my procedural preference.
>
> 4. I commend Amr for a very creative and substantive approach to the
> overall culture where certain forms of harassment have IMHO been made
> somewhat acceptable. Although I would prefer that ICANN legal develop
> an initial conference policy, I do believe Amr has several ideas that
> could in compliment really help us attack this problem.
>
> 5. I still prefer the initial proposal of the small team, mark 2 (as
> improved upon by James and staff), to any proposal that has since been
> produced. I recognise that there have been a number of objections,
> unwarranted in my view, to that approach and that we are unlikely at
> this time to achieve momentum in that direction. On the other hand,
> I should note that I find Paul's most recent proposal, while
> appreciating his effort, to be a bit too generic and lacking enough
> substance for me to be able to support
>
> As a compromise I am willing to accept and propose we go forward with
> James suggestion earlier today to proceed with the letter, minus the
> key points. I note that this approach seemed to meet with the approval
> of several Councillors (Jennifer, Keith, Amr, Marilia) and I add my
> support to theirs. It's time to get this letter out.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Ed
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> <mailto:mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>
> *Sent*: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:07 AM
> *To*: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> *Cc*: "Paul McGrady" <policy at paulmcgrady.com
> <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G."
> <crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>, "Stephanie Perrin"
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, "council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> *Subject*: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah
> re: ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> Hi James and all,
>
> I would rather support your original letter. It was concise, but made
> the relevant points that need to be made. Due to personal problems I
> have been null on this discussions and I publicly apologise to the
> colleagues that carried the piano - particularly Jennifer and Ed. I
> think Jennifer put forward an excellent proposal and I personally
> disagree with the points that were made that ended watering it to the
> text that we have in front of us. What we are discussing is relevant
> to GNSO constituencies and I believe we are in no way out of our remit
> here. However, I do understand my comment is not timely. Let's just
> not weaken the message any further. And we absolutely need a separate
> policy on harassment.
>
> Thank you
>
> Marília
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:34 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Paul -
>
> This is a reasonable and perhaps minimalist response, but does it strip
> away too much substance?
>
> Also, with the removal of the middle section, I recommend some minor edits
> (below).
>
> Thoughts from the others on this? There is no firm deadline for a
> response, but we need to bring this work to a sensible conclusion that
> everyone can support.
>
> Thanks‹
>
> J.
> _____________
>
> Akram Atallah
> COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>
> Dear Akram
>
> On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you for your recent
> blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²) . 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 a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure
> the our mutual goal. We look forward to participating the process to
> develop such a policy, and expect that members of the GNSO community will
> also be engaged in this effort within their own Stakeholder Groups and
> Constituencies. Some have already undertaken work in their own groups (by
> way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee² which can be
> found here [link]). We urge the Board and Staff to consider these
> materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing
> this issue.
>
> Please keep us informed of your work and how we may help.
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
> James Bladel, GNSO Chair
> Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/20/16, 13:17 , "owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul
> McGrady" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of
>
> policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >Thanks James and all. I think dropping the specific recommendations
> >documents makes a lot of sense. Here is a proposed revised cover to
> >Akram:
> >
> >Akram Atallah
> >COO and interim CEO, ICANN
> >
> >Dear Akram
> >
> >On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you for your recent
> >blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²) . 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. We expect that members of the GNSO
> >community will be engaged in this effort within their own Constituencies,
> >Advisory Committees, etc. and note that some have already undertaken work
> >in their own groups (by way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive
> >Committee² which can be found here [link]). We urge the Board and Staff
> >to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new
> >policy addressing this issue.
> >
> >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 a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure
> >the our mutual goal. We look forward to participating the process to
> >develop such a policy. Please keep us informed of your work and how we
> >may help.
> >
> >
> >Thank you
> >
> >
> >Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
> >James Bladel, GNSO Chair
> >Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >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 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 05:45 PM
> >To: policy at paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> >Cc: Stephanie Perrin; council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> >Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
> >ICANN Harassment Policy
> >
> >
> >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 ³picket fence²
> >
> >> 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>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.uto
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.uto>
> >>> ronto.ca <http://ronto.ca>)>
> >>> Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm
> >>> To: "[council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>)"
> >>> <[council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto: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>>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.uto
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.uto>
> >> ronto.ca <http://ronto.ca>)
> >> To:
> >> Jennifer Gore Standiford
> >> [<JStandiford at web.com
> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>](mailto:JStandiford at web.com
> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>), James M. Bladel
> >> [<jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>), Austin, Donna
> >> [<Donna.Austin at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>>](mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>), Phil
> >> Corwin [<psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>](mailto: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>>](mailto: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%29%5b>
> >>>
> >>>http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp](http:/
> <http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp%5d%28http:/>
> >>>/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.as
> >>>
> >>>p)[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%5d%28>
> >>>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 ŒICANN Conference Harassment Key Points for
> >> Consideration¹.
> >>
> >> 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: ŒThe term ³ICANN Conference
> >> Attendees² includes event registered and non-registered participants,
> >> sponsors, contractors, consultants, staff and board members.¹
> >>
> >> This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive
> >> (indicated by the words ³At a minimum² that start the document)
> >> Removed term ³ At a minimum²
> >>
> >> The use of the modifier ³Offensive² at the start of sections 1-4, in
> >> that this subjective standard inevitably raises the question
> >> ³offensive to whom²? 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 Œ offensive¹ with Œunwanted¹ or Œinappropriate¹
> >>
> >> A need to strictly define, and limit, the ³prompt, appropriate
> >> remedial action² 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 ŒICANN staff is required toŠ¹ instead of
> >> Œmay¹
> >>
> >> 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 Œshould/shall¹
> >> vs. Œrequired/will¹
>
> >>
> >> 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>](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 we¹ve called this document a ³draft²
> >> but it too closely resembles a finished policy. I believe (and I
> >> think Jennifer¹s 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 we¹re 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>](mailto: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
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>)[Donna.Austin at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>](mailt
> >>>> o:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz
> <mailto:o%3ADonna.Austin at neustar.biz>)>, Phil Corwin
> >>>> <[psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>](mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>)>, James Bladel
> >>>> <[jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>)>, GNSO Council
> >>>> List <[council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto: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 Donna¹s 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>)
> >> [[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann
> <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
> >>
> >> It¹s 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
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>)[owner-council at gnso.ic
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.ic>
> >> ann.org <http://ann.org>](mailto: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>](mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann
> <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
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>)[jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel@ <mailto:jbladel@>
> >>>> godaddy.com <http://godaddy.com>)>;
> >>>> GNSO Council List
> >>>> <[council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>](mailto: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-risk
> >> y-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 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct**
> >> **202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax**
> >> **202-255-6172 <tel: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 ³At a minimum² that start the
> >> document) · The use of the modifier ³Offensive² at the start
> >> of sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises
> >> the question ³offensive to whom²? 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 ³prompt,
> >> appropriate remedial action² 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
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>)[owner-council at gnso.ic
> <mailto:owner-council at gnso.ic>
> >> ann.org <http://ann.org>](mailto: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>](mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann
> <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 (³Conduct at
> >> ICANN Meetings²
> >>
>
> >>[](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings)[https://www
> >>.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings](https://www.icann.org/new
> <http://icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings%5d%28https:/www.icann.org/new>
> >>s/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
> >> (³Statement from NCUC Executive Committee²
> >> [](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 (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²). 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
> >> (³ICANN Conference Harassment Policy², 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 (³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee²). 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://
> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%29%5bhttps:/>
> >>
> www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://www.icann.o
> <http://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%5d%28https:/www.icann.o>
> >> rg/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
> <http://www.avg.com>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww
> >>>> w.avg.com
> <http://w.avg.com>&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr5
> >>>> 6eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&
> >>>> s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=)
> >>>> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date:
> >>>> 04/02/16
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> *Marília Maciel*
>
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
>
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
>
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu <http://www.diplomacy.edu>
>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160421/605c52cb/attachment.html>
More information about the council
mailing list