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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Heather, Phil, Carlos & Paul.  Good points about the GNSO straying
outside of its remit, not to mention expertise.

Proposal:  Could we drop the ³Key Points² document (and references to it),
and post the letter on its own?  This approach tracks closely to Paul¹s 3
points, (altho stops short of specifically recommending a CCWG).

And to echo Heather¹s point, this is not to discount the contributions of
the sub team. 

J.


On 4/19/16, 19:46 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Heather
Forrest" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>I am grateful for the work to date of the small team and do not in any
>way wish to downplay their efforts, but I too agree with Paul - very well
>put.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Heather
>
>________________________________________
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
>behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:46
>To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.; policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Stephanie Perrin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>There has been some discussion of harassment policy within the BC, and
>the prevailing view is that a draft policy is best developed by legal
>experts in this sensitive area and then put out for public comment prior
>to finalization and adoption.
>
>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
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
>Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:45 PM
>To: policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Stephanie Perrin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx
>>> ronto.ca)>
>>> 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@xxxxxxxx
>> ronto.ca)
>> 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.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).
>>> 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@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 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@xxxxxxx](mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx)>
>>>> **Date:** Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
>>>> **To:** "Austin, Donna"
>>>> <[](mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx)[Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailt
>>>> o: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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[owner-council@xxxxxxx
>> ann.org](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann
>> .org)]
>> **On Behalf Of** Phil Corwin
>>>> **Sent:** Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
>>>> **To:** James M. Bladel
>>>> <[](mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx)[jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:jbladel@
>>>> godaddy.com)>;
>>>> 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-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/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 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[owner-council@xxxxxxx
>> ann.org](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@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
>>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://
>> www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww
>>>> 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
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date:
>04/10/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>