[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy: Summary of Discussion So Far

Wed Dec 14 15:12:01 CET 2016

All,

I also spent a few cycles looking through this document. I think the
added text is pretty good. Thanks Corinne!

I think a few things are needed for consensus:

* Agreement on the proposed revisions to the procedure - basically
  changing from an Ombudsperson-based process to one with a 4-person
  group.

* Decision whether we should make recommendations about the list of
  harassment. The current proposal is to propose an alternate list of
  examples.

* Decision whether we should address vexatious complaints and in what
  way. Current proposal is to mention that the explicit grievance
  mechanism should be able to handle vexatious complaints, and more.

* Agreement on the proposed privacy text.

Does it make sense to try to have a call about this proposed response,
or should we continue with e-mail + the Google Doc?

Cheers,

--
Shane

At 2016-12-12 12:02:48 -0500
Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Corinne,
> 
> Thank you for this. This is an excellent starting point. I have added a few comments to your text but overwhelmingly I support your positions. In particular, decentralising the role of the Ombudsperson in resolving complains of harassment strikes me as a better path forward. Now that the IGF has ended, I will endeavour to expand upon this draft by our internal deadline of Thursday.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> 
> Ayden Férdeline
> [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy: Summary of Discussion So Far
> Local Time: 7 December 2016 7:27 PM
> UTC Time: 7 December 2016 19:27
> From: corinnecath at gmail.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> To jumpstart this effort I have added some text to the Google doc. With the holidays coming up it might be good to be mindful of the initial deadline set by Rafik for next week Thursday.
> 
> Looking forward to discuss.
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please find the google doc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-11-23 3:20 GMT+09:00 hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>:
> 
> + 1 absolutely that would be more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le mardi 22 novembre 2016, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> a écrit :
> 
> 
> + 1 Rafik - that would be very helpful.
> 
> 
> On 22/11/2016 06:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Shane,
> 
> thanks for this effort to summarise the discussion, really helpful.
> I think we can move those items to either google doc, etherpad and so on to work on the statement and let people comment directly or proposing edits there. definitely it is not early to start if we want to find a consensus based text. if everyone is ok, I can create a google doc quickly .
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-11-22 14:15 GMT+09:00 Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Apologies if I mis-characterize the discussion. It is not my intent to
> pursue an agenda regarding the discussion here, but rather to try to
> see where we are at and to make sure that the topic doesn't get dropped.
> 
> It seems there are some areas of agreement regarding ICANN's proposed
> anti-harassment policy, but also some areas of disagreement.
> 
> Possible agreement:
> 
> * The power of the ombudsperson in this process needs to be tempered
> and/or changed.
> 
> Probable disagreement:
> 
> * Having a list of examples of harassment is a good idea.
> * We should have a procedure for dealing with vexatious complaints.
> 
> Unsure:
> 
> * Privacy of everyone should be insured by the process.
> * List of Specified Characteristic is unwieldy.
> * Ongoing harassment should be addressed.
> * Specific changes to the role of ombudsperson in the process. Perhaps a
> separate, community (non-staff, non-board) position for this?
> 
> I don't think that we can get consensus on the areas of disagreement.
> 
> I would like to hope that we can get consensus on at least some of
> those that I am unsure about.
> 
> There may be other issues that have not come up yet, of course.
> 
> Possibly we'll need to commit to having an NCUC response as well as
> separate responses by people about issues of disagreement?
> 
> Is it too early to start drafting text about what we do agree on?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987)
> 
> 
> 
> ------
> 
> 
> [Avast logo](https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
> 
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> [www.avast.com](https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corinne J.N. Cath
> Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute
> 
> Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath
> Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com
> Twitter: @C_Cath
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161214/9bbd6ce0/attachment-0002.sig>