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

[Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:32 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford@xxxxxxx><mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>, 
James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Austin, 
Donna <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



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

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: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).

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