Re: [council] RE: Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy

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

Thanks, all.  I appreciate everyone’s patience as we worked through the variety 
of concerns expressed.  We will get this sent off today, a bit later than 
planned, but with a better outcome.

Thanks—

J.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Marilia Maciel 
<mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 13:36
To: Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>>
Cc: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong 
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
ICANN Harassment Policy

I support the letter too. Thank you all.
Marília

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford 
<JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
I support.  Thanks Mary.

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:57 PM
To: Mary Wong; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Phil 
Corwin
Subject: re: [council] RE: Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: 
ICANN Harassment Policy

I add my approval to Phil's with gratitude to Mary for all the work she has 
done on this matter.



________________________________
From: "Phil Corwin" <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:01 PM
To: "Mary Wong" <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] RE: Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

I approve of sending this letter.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:32 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

Dear Councilors,

Please see the attached draft letter, which is a clean copy of the most recent 
version reflecting edits made by Jennifer and Stephanie to the last draft 
proposed by Paul and incorporating Ed’s suggestion relating to a reference to 
the IETF.

As mentioned by James yesterday, the plan is to send this version to Akram.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889<tel:%2B1-603-5744889>


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 09:23
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Stephanie Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

Much appreciated

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:20 PM
To: Phil Corwin; Stephanie Perrin; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

Phil -

Absolutely.  Stand by for clean copy from Mary.

Thanks—

J.

From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 21:11
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Stephanie 
Perrin 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

James:
I am not clear on exactly what the final draft text is. Can we please see the 
clean copy before it is dispatched to Akram?
Thanks and best regards,
Philip



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:54 PM
To: Stephanie Perrin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN 
Harassment Policy

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<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 16:25
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>>, James 
Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Marilia Maciel 
<mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jennifer Standiford 
<JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>>
Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:43 PM
To: "Stephanie Perrin" 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx"<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx><egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>,
 "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilia 
Maciel" <mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto: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]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:23 PM
To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>; 
James M. Bladel; Marilia Maciel; 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/


We call upon the GNSO community to engage and participate, 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> 
[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:mariliamaciel@xxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:07 AM
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"Stephanie Perrin" 
<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Paul
McGrady" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 
behalf of
policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
>[mailto: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<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Stephanie Perrin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ronto.ca<http://ronto.ca>)>
>>> Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm
>>> To: 
>>> "[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)"
>>> <[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and one more time....
>>> SP
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:
>> Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re:
>> ICANN Harassment Policy
>> Date:
>> Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:28:01 -0400
>> From:
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> [<stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>](mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx<mailto:stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxx>
>> ronto.ca<http://ronto.ca>)
>> To:
>> Jennifer Gore Standiford
>> [<JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>>](mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>),
>>  James M. Bladel
>> [<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>](mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>),
>>  Austin, Donna
>> [<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>](mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>),
>>  Phil
>> Corwin 
>> [<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>](mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>),
>>  GNSO Council List
>> [<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>](mailto: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%29%5b>
>>>
>>>http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp](http:/<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp%5d%28http:/>
>>>/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%5d%28>
>>>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>](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>](mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx<mailto:JStandiford@xxxxxxx>)>
>>>> **Date:** Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46
>>>> **To:** "Austin, Donna"
>>>> <[](mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>)[Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailt
>>>> o:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:o%3ADonna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>)>, Phil 
>>>> Corwin
>>>> <[psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>)>,
>>>>  James Bladel
>>>> <[jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>)>,
>>>>  GNSO Council
>>>> List 
>>>> <[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<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<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)[owner-council@xxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxx>
>> ann.org<http://ann.org>](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<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<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>)[jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:jbladel@<mailto:jbladel@>
>>>> godaddy.com<http://godaddy.com>)>;
>>>> GNSO Council List
>>>> <[council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct**
>> **202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax**
>> **202-255-6172<tel: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct**
>> **202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax**
>> **202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell**
>> ** **
>> **Twitter: @VlawDC**
>>
>> **_"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey_**
>>
>> **From:**[](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)[owner-council@xxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxx>
>> ann.org<http://ann.org>](mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
>> [[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<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<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<http://www.avg.com>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww
>>>> w.avg.com<http://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<http://www.diplomacy.edu>
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/




________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
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<http://www.diplomacy.edu>
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/