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

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree.

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:51 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Heather Forrest; Phil Corwin; "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G."; 
policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephanie Perrin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy


Hi,

Apologies for weighing in late on this. I also, to an extent, agree with Paul. 
The GNSO’s remit seems to be expanding as far as I can tell, especially as a 
result of the new accountability mechanisms. So I don’t, in principle, have a 
problem with the GNSO Council having a position on this topic. However, it 
seems reasonable to me, and as Paul has pointed out that:

1. If the Council is going to take up a position on this on behalf of the GNSO, 
it should reflect the outcome of some sort of process for input from the GNSO’s 
SGs/Cs.

and

2. Ideally, the GNSO’s input would be within the context of a broader community 
dialogue. Obviously, this issue is not one that is limited to the GNSO.

I’ve been learning to be cautious when suggesting that a CCWG is an ideal 
mechanism to tackle issues. In this case, it may very well be, however, I am 
entertaining another thought. It seems to me like this sort of work may best be 
coordinated by ICANN, and not its SOs/ACs. It seems to me to fall nicely within 
the remit of the Development and Public Responsibility Division (DPRD), 
particularly under the “Cooperation to Strengthen the Ecosystem Around the 
Domain Name System” track…, but that’s just a thought.

>From a GNSO perspective, should the DPRD (or any other ICANN division) take 
>this up, we do have a yet unused and relatively lightweight process to use to 
>include the GNSO’s views on this; the GNSO Input Process. This process was 
>specifically developed by the GNSO Policy and Implementation WG to enable the 
>GNSO to provide input on issues that fall outside of its traditional scope of 
>gTLD policy recommendations to the ICANN Board in a structured and thorough 
>manner.

For now, I would advise we proceed as suggested by James and others in tabling 
(as opposed to dropping) the draft harassment policy document, and posting the 
letter to Akram alone. The key points document may serve as a helpful resource 
along with others, which may be worthy of consideration at a time and within a 
context that are better suited to holding more detailed and substantive 
discussions on this.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:25 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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@mail.u
>>>> to
>>>> 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@mail.u
>>> to
>>> 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](h
>>>> ttp:/ /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](mai
>>>>> lt 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@xxxxxxxx
>>> nn
>>> .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@gnso.
>>> ic
>>> ann.org](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxx
>>> nn
>>> .org)]
>>> **On Behalf Of** Phil Corwin
>>>>> **Sent:** Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM
>>>>> **To:** James M. Bladel
>>>>> <[](mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx)[jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:jblade
>>>>> l@
>>>>> 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-caitly
>>> n- 
>>> jenner-joke)[http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-ri
>>> sk 
>>> y-caitlyn-jenner-joke](http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launch
>>> es
>>> -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@gnso.
>>> ic
>>> ann.org](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxx
>>> nn
>>> .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.or
>>> g/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.ht
>>> ml 
>>> )[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.htm
>>> l]
>>> (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.ht
>>> ml 
>>> )[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.htm
>>> l]
>>> (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_CePZ11QJs
>>>>> r5 
>>>>> 6eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_vo
>>>>> c&
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 
>