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

Sure, Happy to do that Jenn.
Stephanie
On 2016-04-06 17:05, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:


Stephanie,
In order to keep track of the current input from councilors, would you be willing to redline the document with your suggested changes to below and resend to the group? 

Thanks

Jennifer
*From:*owner-council@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 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).

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