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

Thu Dec 22 00:43:39 CET 2016

Hi Ayden,

thanks for the message, and indeed thanks to all who commented there. yes
it would be hard to have confcall in coming days . Corinne and I are going
to work on editing the document and resolve the comments there so we can
have draft for second reading and ready for endorsment.

Best,

Rafik

2016-12-22 4:14 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:

> Thanks to everyone who has contributed work on this proposed response
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit?usp=sharing>
> to date. We are very soon going to come up against the deadline for this
> consultation (12 January), and given the time of year now, I fear we might
> find it difficult to schedule a call to reach rough consensus on the
> response contents. A few weeks ago there was a lot of interest in helping
> shape this document, so if you have not already read through the Google
> doc, please consider doing so now and share your thoughts directly within
> it... there's still work to be done here, but it will be easier to firm up
> with a little more input. A huge thanks to Corrine and Shane for drafting
> what we have thus far.
>
> 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: 14 December 2016 4:49 PM
> UTC Time: 14 December 2016 16:49
> From: corinnecath at gmail.com
> To: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
> Hi all,
> @Shane, thanks for the excellent summary as always. Some small additions,
> in line.
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I also spent a few cycles looking through this document. I think the
>> added text is pretty good. Thanks Corinne!
>>
>
> My pleasure.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yes - would be great to hear more people on this proposal. Ayden
> mentioned that 4 is an arbitrary number, I would like to see what others
> think. Additionally, we also need to figure out if we want this group to be
> drawn from the community, or if we want professional staff etc.
>
>
>
>> * 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?
>>
>
> I would like to see some more people comment, as I remember a flurry of +1
> and people signing on to be penholders on this issue the week before the
> IGF.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>> <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline%5D(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/docume
>> nt/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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161222/a20d48a1/attachment-0002.html>