ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

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@xxxxxxxxxxx]
*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@xxxxxxx <mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>> 
*Date: *Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
*To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Phil Corwin 
*Sent:* Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
*To:* James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_18772-2Dicann-2D53-2Dlaunches-2Dwith-2Drisky-2Dcaitlyn-2Djenner-2Djoke&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=h3XcnXqB85gfZ3Y7DZ8az_JrLeKiCfPqWb4lAHQf4_w&e=>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_conduct-2Dat-2DICANN-2Dmeetings&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=2bT0nSpiH1q_-tgjleaUvWdNq2u6d8arN9tI0S9B0VU&e=>).
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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermail_ncuc-2Ddiscuss_2016-2DMarch_018488.html&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=8hUYalyHSVt4n-N7pswf04QMWd3qMc5hEdlArbgm240&e=>) 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_conduct-2Dat-2Dicann-2Dmeetings&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=kieUDRl76GvEhQPJxetsJ4aez7X5o2Vea2-dIT5x-Uc&e=>
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ncuc.org_pipermail_ncuc-2Ddiscuss_2016-2DMarch_018488.html&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=8hUYalyHSVt4n-N7pswf04QMWd3qMc5hEdlArbgm240&e=> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>