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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Hi everybody,

 I must admit  I'm not very happy with the way this conversation has gone. To 
be clear, I'm not too pulsed by the policy disagreements. I am a bit perturbed, 
though, at the timing of many of the contributions. We're better than this.

 Let me first extend my thanks and appreciation to Jennifer for her leadership 
and hard work on this effort. In the four plus years I have been involved with 
ICANN I can not recall ever having worked with someone whose passion, 
knowledge, competence and expertise I have come to so admire. I am honoured and 
humbled to serve on the same Council as she.

 I would also like to thank James, for his tireless effort to try to bring this 
matter to a conclusion.

 The small group proposal was posted to the Council list on 6 April. Stephanie, 
to her credit, was the only Councillor to indicate widespread dissatisfaction 
with the small group proposal between the time it was posted and our call on 
the 14th: the expected date of agreement and dispatch. I appreciate the 
preambles of many of those who weighed in late on the matter acknowledging  the 
work of the small group who put together the initial proposal, but I'm not a 
big fan of those who weigh in last minute to criticise work they themselves 
chose not to participate in or object to in a timely manner. This matter 
obviously needed conversation but because of the lateness of most of the 
objections we didn't have time for that. We need to do better in the future and 
I'm sure we will.

 There is a proposed GNSO public comment on the FY17 budget and operating plan 
a few of us have worked on that is still out for work. There is a hard deadline 
of 30 April for submission. I believe we've set a deadline a few days earlier 
for objections, contributions and comments. It's still a skeleton paper and 
could use more meat. Contributions are not only welcome but are needed. I only 
ask you, my colleagues, to do your best to please voice any objections sooner 
rather than later. It's not good for the quality of discussion nor respectful 
to those of us who put together the initial documents to jump in with wholesale 
objections at deadline. Thank you for your consideration.

 As for the matter at hand:

 1. There was never any attempt to create or signify GNSO policy in the initial 
proposal. Rather we were trying to include "reference markers" to possible 
policies. One was created by the small team, improved upon with suggestions by 
others. There were references to other external policies that we thought staff 
and board might want to consider. I have disagreements, some substantial, with 
each of the reference markers save the one we created. I did not object to 
their inclusion in the letter because I recognised what they were: markers, not 
concrete proposals.

 2. I support the approach of the Business Constituency in a  more specific 
form. My preference would be for the Board to ask ICANN Legal to draft a 
conference harassment policy, post the proposed policy for public comment and 
then have the Board act accordingly. I have complete confidence John Jeffrey 
and his team could and would produce a substantive policy proposal that we all 
could and would support.

 3. I do not support the creation of a CCWG in this matter. Please see point 2 
for my procedural preference.

 4. I commend Amr for a very creative and substantive approach to the overall 
culture where certain forms of harassment have IMHO been made somewhat 
acceptable. Although I would prefer that ICANN legal develop an initial 
conference policy,  I do believe Amr has several ideas that could in compliment 
really help us attack this problem.

 5. I still prefer the initial proposal of the small team, mark 2 (as improved 
upon by James and staff), to any proposal that has since been produced. I 
recognise  that there have been a number of objections, unwarranted in my view, 
to that approach and that we are unlikely at this time to achieve momentum in 
that direction.  On the other hand, I should note that I find Paul's most 
recent proposal, while appreciating his effort,  to be a bit too generic and 
lacking enough substance for me to be able to support

 As a compromise I am willing to accept and propose we go forward with James 
suggestion earlier today to proceed with the letter, minus the key points. I 
note that this approach seemed to meet with the approval of several Councillors 
(Jennifer, Keith, Amr, Marilia) and I add my support to theirs. It's time to 
get this letter out.

 Respectfully,

 Ed





----------------------------------------
 From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:07 AM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." 
<crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy
 Hi James and all,
 I would rather support your original letter. It was concise, but made the 
relevant points that need to be made. Due to personal problems I have been null 
on this discussions and I publicly apologise to the colleagues that carried the 
piano - particularly Jennifer and Ed. I think Jennifer put forward an excellent 
proposal and I personally disagree with the points that were made that ended 
watering it to the text that we have in front of us. What we are discussing is 
relevant to GNSO constituencies and I believe we are in no way out of our remit 
here. However, I do understand my comment is not timely. Let's just not weaken 
the message any further. And we absolutely need a separate policy on harassment.

 Thank you
 Marília

   On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:34 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Paul -

This is a reasonable and perhaps minimalist response, but does it strip
away too much substance?

Also, with the removal of the middle section, I recommend some minor edits
(below).

Thoughts from the others on this? There is no firm deadline for a
response, but we need to bring this work to a sensible conclusion that
everyone can support.

Thanks<

J.
_____________

Akram Atallah
COO and interim CEO, ICANN

Dear Akram ­

On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you 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 a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure
the our mutual goal. We look forward to participating the process to
develop such a policy, and expect that members of the GNSO community will
also be engaged in this effort within their own Stakeholder Groups and
Constituencies. Some have already undertaken work in their own groups (by
way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee² which can be
found here [link]).  We urge the Board and Staff to consider these
materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing
this issue.

Please keep us informed of your work and how we may help.

Thank you

Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
James Bladel, GNSO Chair
Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair

On 4/20/16, 13:17 , "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul
McGrady" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of   policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

>
>Thanks James and all.  I think dropping the specific recommendations
>documents makes a lot of sense.  Here is a proposed revised cover to
>Akram:
>
>Akram Atallah
>COO and interim CEO, ICANN
>
>Dear Akram ­
>
>On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you 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.  We expect that members of the GNSO
>community will be engaged in this effort within their own Constituencies,
>Advisory Committees, etc. and note that some have already undertaken work
>in their own groups (by way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive
>Committee² which can be found here [link]).  We urge the Board and Staff
>to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new
>policy addressing this issue.
>
>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 a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure
>the our mutual goal.  We look forward to participating the process to
>develop such a policy.  Please keep us informed of your work and how we
>may help.
>
>
>Thank you
>
>
>Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
>Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 05:45 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 OICANN 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: OThe 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 O offensive¹ with Ounwanted¹ or Oinappropriate¹
>>
>> 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 OICANN staff is required toS¹ instead of
>> Omay¹
>>
>> 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 Oshould/shall¹
>> vs. Orequired/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
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>




--        Marília Maciel
 Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
 Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
 http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
 DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
 PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/