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

[Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Stephanie for the suggestion and Ed for the editing. I agree with
the last version.
Thanks James for your work on  facilitating this.
All the best
Marília

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:53 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Thank you, Stephanie.  And (again) to Jennifer for pulling this together.
>
> By now it’s clear that while no one is 100% satisfied with the draft
> letter, all Councilors should see their contributions reflected in the
> draft to some degree.  Therefore, if there are any more final comments,
> please get them to the list in the next few hours.
>
> After that, I’ll ask Marika & team to put together a “clean” copy in the
> morning, and we’ll post to Akram and cc: this list.
>
> This is certainly just the beginning of the work to be done on this topic.
> I expect we have more conversations on this as the work goes on.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
> From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 16:25
> To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <
> crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
> Whatever folks wish.
> SP
>
> On 16-04-21 5:21 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>
> Thanks for your editing Stephanie! It makes the letter much more
> effective. I'd like to get this done ASAP as well but I do have problems
> referring to only one organisation and a specific policy as a reference
> marker, particularly the IETF's.
>
> There are several aspects of the IETF policy I don't agree with  (such as
> possible banning of offenders) and I believe  that the policy itself  would
> be illegal for a California public benefit corporation to adopt. Without
> dragging folks into a tedious legal analysis,  I would note that the
> Declaration of Rights of the California Constitution has been held to apply
> to private firms if expressed in the affirmative (such as article 1,
> section 2, which refers to free speech; the affirmative expression of
> California speech rights differentiating it from the negative expression of
> such rights in the first amendment of the US Constitution) (*Prunegard
> Shopping **Center *being the defining case extending such rights to
> private firms and facilities) and combined with California's expansive
>  long arm statute (CA Civ Pro §410.10) could invalidate such a policy.
> While I did not oppose including the IETF policy and process when our
> proposed submission included multiple reference markers, including one
> developed internally, I am uncomfortable issuing a statement referencing
> only one policy because that could be perceived as a direct endorsement of
> Council. That the policy referenced may be illegal is also be a problem.
>
> Stephanie, would an alteration to your bullet point, such as the one that
> follows, be acceptable?:
>
> Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder character
> as an institution, would it be useful to consider how other comparable
> organisations, such as the IETF,  have dealt with establishing similar
> policies?
>
> I'd be fine with that.
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Jennifer Gore Standiford" <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
> <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
> *Sent*: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:43 PM
> *To*: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx"
> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>, "James
> M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilia Maciel"
> <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx> <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>,
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc*: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx> <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>
> Thanks Stephanie. Your additional bullet point below is acceptable to me.
> Does anyone else have additional thoughts? It would be great to close this
> out quickly.
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:23 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Gore Standiford; egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx; James M. Bladel;
> Marilia Maciel; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
> *Subject:* Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>
>
> I caught a couple of typos Jenn, and I would like to propose one
> addition....many of our members agree with Avri's suggestion (which I had
> included in the appendix, list of other resources) that we talk to the
> IETF, and look at their policy which they have recently completed.  So I
> added another bullet for your consideration,  Changes marked in *Bold*.
> Given the rather thorough trashing my late suggestions have already
> received, please feel free to completely ignore this contribution.  Just
> trying to help....
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 16-04-21 1:10 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts by the council members regarding
> the draft letter to Akram on the subject of Harassment.   After reaching
> what seems to be an agreement to exclude the attachment, I believe the
> pendulum has swung too far the other way by removing key content contained
> within James’ drafted letter.  Please see a revised version of his letter
> below (with no attachment).  I urge my peers to reach an agreement soon, so
> that the GNSO offers a voice on this issue while the topic remains
> relevant. - Jennifer
>
>
>
> 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 (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”).  Members of the Council, and all
> of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies,
>
> share the goal of ensuring that all ICANN community members (shall)*are
> able to* participate and contribute within an environment that does not
> tolerate discrimination and* remains *free of harassment. 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. When
> considering a policy to address this area, we respectfully ask for
> consideration regarding these key questions:
>
> ·         Would a policy enhance the current ‘Expected Standards of
> Behavior’ or remain independent?
>
> ·         How would reporting procedures be defined and* who* would be
> included in the reporting structure i.e. ICANN Staff, Office of the
> Ombudsman, or other entity?
>
> ·         What mechanism would be in place to *enforce* the policy and
> protect those involved *in* known incidents?
>
>
>    - *Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder
>    character as an institution, would it be useful to consider how other
>    comparable organizations have dealt with reporting and enforcement?  We
>    understand that the IETF has recently gone through a similar exercise, and
>    it might be useful to reach out to them for ideas, both for process and
>    substance.  The new policy is here **
>    
> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/04/team-to-help-regarding-harassment-concerns/>https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/04/team-to-help-regarding-harassment-concerns/
>    
> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/04/team-to-help-regarding-harassment-concerns/>*
>
>
>
> We call upon the GNSO community to engage and participat*e,* as we
> anticipate additional topics and questions will arise from these efforts.
> It is worth noting that other groups have begun work in this area
> (Statement from NCUC Executive Committee).  We urge ICANN staff to
> incorporate these initial questions during the commencement of this
> exercise. * We* all agree that a new policy must ensure a healthy
> environment for all.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
> James Bladel, GNSO Chair
>
> Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On Behalf Of *Edward Morris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:13 PM
> *To:* James M. Bladel; Marilia Maciel
> *Cc:* Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.; Stephanie Perrin;
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
> ICANN Harassment Policy
>
>
>
> 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>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Cc*: "Paul McGrady" < <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." < <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>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>
> 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>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>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>stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx
> >>> ronto.ca)>
> >>> Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm
> >>> To: "[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)"
> >>> <[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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>stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx
> >> ronto.ca)
> >> To:
> >> Jennifer Gore Standiford
> >> [<JStandiford@xxxxxxx>](mailto: <JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
> JStandiford@xxxxxxx), James M. Bladel
> >> [<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx), Austin, Donna
> >> [<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx), Phil
> >> Corwin [<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>psc@xxxxxxxxxxx),
> GNSO Council List
> >> [<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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>
> 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>JStandiford@xxxxxxx
> )>
> >>>> **Date:** Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
> >>>> **To:** "Austin, Donna"
> >>>> <[](mailto: <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx)[
> <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailt
> >>>> o:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx)>, Phil Corwin
> >>>> <[ <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>psc@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto: <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx)>, James Bladel
> >>>> <[ <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx)>, GNSO Council
> >>>> List <[ <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> >> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <owner-council@gnso.icann>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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[ <owner-council@xxxxxxx>
> owner-council@xxxxxxx
> >> ann.org](mailto: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> >> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <owner-council@gnso.icann>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)[
> <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:jbladel@
> >>>> godaddy.com)>;
> >>>> GNSO Council List
> >>>> <[ <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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>
> http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risk
> >> y-caitlyn-jenner-joke](
> <http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)[ <owner-council@xxxxxxx>
> owner-council@xxxxxxx
> >> ann.org](mailto: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> >> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx](mailto:
> <owner-council@gnso.icann>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>
> https://www
> >>.
> icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings](https://www.icann.org/new
> <http://icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings%5d%28https:/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://
> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%29%5bhttps:/>
> >> www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://www.icann.o
> <http://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%5d%28https:/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>
> 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>http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
>
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee -  <http://www.politics.org.br/>
> http://www.politics.org.br/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*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/