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

["Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to restate my +1 to Paul´s comments very specifically on the way 
he has phrased some issues questions
> I guess I have my doubts in general about this being the role of the 
> GNSO Council.  
me too

> Clearly, this is an important issue which affects all members of the 
> ICANN community, and not just members of the GNSO.  
exactly

> Wouldn't a simple letter (1) making note of the event, (2) making note 
> of the lack of a clear policy, and (3) asking the Board to launch a 
> CCWG to address this issue (if the Board believes that it and Staff 
> together cannot or should not for some reason), be sufficient?  I 
> just don't see how the Council should be in the business of making 
> specific policy recommendations without a policy process.  
see under “picket fence”

> The Council is not a legislative body - our role is to play traffic 
> cop to grass roots movements, right?  
thats the way I see it and why I added my +1
> Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something here!
I miss clear guidelines from the Corporation on engagement rules for 
participants in f2f meetings (like the ones we have in adobe connect 
rooms).
Carlos Raul Gutierrez


> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram
> > Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
> > From: Stephanie Perrin 
> > <[stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)>
> > Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm
> > To: "[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" 
> > <[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)>
> >
> >
> > 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)[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp](http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp).  
> > In particular, the tools that help evaluate whether an act 
> > constitutes harassment I think are useful:  
> > [](http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp)[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp](http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp).  
> > They put an emphasis on the activity needing to be repeated, or one 
> > action to be extreme...this may be more applicable in a workplace 
> > environment but I think the tests are nevertheless relevant.
> > Cheers Stephanie Perrin
> >
> > On 2016-04-06 15:00, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
> > > James and Colleagues,
>  
> Thanks to Donna and Phil for their constructive feedback. With that, 
> please review and provide any additional feedback based on  the 
> revised draft ‘ICANN Conference Harassment – Key Points for 
> Consideration’.
>  
> The attached addresses the following feedback received thus far,  in 
> particular:
>  
> Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN 
> staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a 
> community ICANN attendee policy?
> Included the following sentence: ‘The term “ICANN Conference 
> Attendees” includes event registered and non-registered 
> participants, sponsors, contractors, consultants, staff and board 
> members.’
>  
> This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive 
> (indicated by the words “At a minimum” that start the document)
> Removed term “ At a minimum”
>  
> The use of the modifier “Offensive” at the start of sections 1-4, 
> in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the question 
> “offensive to whom”? In this regard, I think there must be some 
> element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior subject to 
> sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the cultural 
> diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to situations where 
> remarks that are not intended to offend may nonetheless do so.
> Replaced the word ‘ offensive’ with ‘unwanted’ or 
> ‘inappropriate’
>  
> A need to strictly define, and limit, the “prompt, appropriate 
> remedial action” that ICANN staff may take if they determine that 
> harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are the 
> appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and whether the 
> investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should be separate).
> Change verbiage to state ‘ICANN staff is required to…’ instead 
> of ‘may’
>  
> Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who believes 
> that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or must report 
> it.
> Change the verbiage to sake of consistency. Opted for 
> ‘should/shall’ vs. ‘required/will’
>  
> The outstanding questions that James has outline should remain 
> included in the GNSO letter to ensure each item is addressed.  
>  
> Thanks
> Jennifer
>  
>  
> **From:** James M. Bladel 
> [[mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx](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" 
> > > <[](mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx)[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](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:**[](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto: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 
> > > <[](mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx)[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)[http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke](http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke)
>  
> Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman 
> Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation be 
> required?
>  
>  
>  
> **Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal**
> **Virtualaw LLC**
> **1155 F Street, NW**
> **Suite 1050**
> **Washington, DC 20004**
> **202-559-8597/Direct**
> **202-559-8750/Fax**
> **202-255-6172/Cell**
> ** **
> **Twitter: @VlawDC**
>  
> **_"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey_**
>  
> **From:** Phil Corwin
> > > **Sent:** Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM
> > > **To:** 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List
> > > **Subject:** RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
> > > ICANN Harassment Policy
>  
> Colleagues:
>  
> I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject and 
> establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual and other 
> forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings.
>  
> However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such harassment, I 
> have some concerns about the proposed draft Harassment Policy, 
> relating to:
> ·         This very extensive list of potential offenses 
> being non-exclusive (indicated by the words “At a minimum” that 
> start the document)
> ·         The use of the modifier “Offensive” at the 
> start of sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably 
> raises the question “offensive to whom”? In this regard, I think 
> there must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the 
> behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize 
> that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to 
> situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may 
> nonetheless do so.
> ·         A need to strictly define, and limit, the 
> “prompt, appropriate remedial action” that ICANN staff may take if 
> they determine that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN 
> staff are the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, 
> and whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should 
> be separate).
> ·         Contradictory language regarding whether an 
> individual who believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should 
> report it, or must report it.
>  
> I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on our 
> call of April 14th.
>  
> Best regards, Philip
>  
>  
> **Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal**
> **Virtualaw LLC**
> **1155 F Street, NW**
> **Suite 1050**
> **Washington, DC 20004**
> **202-559-8597/Direct**
> **202-559-8750/Fax**
> **202-255-6172/Cell**
> ** **
> **Twitter: @VlawDC**
>  
> **_"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey_**
>  
> **From:**[](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto: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://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings)).
>  
> In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that support 
> further work in this area, without weighing in on any specific 
> indecent.  Also, the letter references a statement from the NCUC 
> ExCom (“Statement from NCUC Executive 
> Committee” [](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)) 
> and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers (attached), 
> and urges any future effort to consider these materials.
>  
> If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call on 
> 14 APR.  We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to 
> proceed.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> * * *
>  
> Akram Atallah
> COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>  
> Dear Akram –
>  
> On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for your 
> recent blog post (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”).  Members of the 
> Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, 
> share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can 
> participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where 
> harassment and discrimination are not tolerated.
>  
> Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged 
> by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on 
> this subject.
> In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a draft 
> (“ICANN Conference Harassment Policy”, attached). Several 
> questions remain open, however, including:
>  
> ?         Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct 
> from, the existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy
> ?         Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, 
> or the Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group
> ?         How the policy will be enforced, and
> ?         Other topics and questions that will arise from this 
> work.
>  
> We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in this 
> effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in their own 
> groups (“Statement from NUCU Executive Committee”).  We urge this 
> group to consider these materials in any community undertaking to 
> develop new policy addressing this issue.
>  
> Thank you
>  
>  
> Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
> James Bladel, GNSO Chair
> Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>  
> [](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings)[https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings)
>  
> [](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)
>  
> * * *
> No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - 
> > > [www.avg.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc&s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=)
> > > Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 
> > > 04/02/16
> >