[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from NCUC executive committee

[Stephanie Perrin]

ICANN's expected standards of behaviour are not fulsome, I agree, but 
they do cover inappropriate conduct. 
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en
In particular, the following (bullet 3) section covers how we treat one 
another at ICANN (including at meetings):
*
*

    *Treat*** all members of the ICANN community *equally,* irrespective
    of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
    beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the
    ICANN community should treat each other *with civility* both face to
    face and online. [emphasis added]

Not a great deal of detail, but "equally", particularly when accompanied 
by the following recital, goes a long way to addressing gender bias and 
inappropriate behaviour, as does the expression "with civility".   The 
redress mechanism is the Ombudsman.  The 2005 RMAF 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rmaf-08feb05-en.pdf 
(Results-based Management Accountability Framework) details how the 
model is expected to work.  You might not think it is adequate, fair 
enough, but it is not accurate to say there is nothing, in my view. We 
need more, that's all.
I am not criticising here, just trying to provide background documents.  
As the statement says, more work on policies and procedures needs to be 
done, and we in NCUC will help with that work.

Cheers Stephanie
On 2016-03-24 1:05, Padmini wrote:
> Thank you for this clear statement, and the support for many of the 
> issues I raised.
> I would just like to put on record that the phrases "_substantive due 
> process_" and "_evidentiary burden being met_" have been echoed by me 
> vocally and repeatedly throughout the entire process, both to the 
> ombudsman and to many of you. I am a student of the law, and have 
> these principles, including natural justice well drilled into my head. 
> If there wasn't a failure of process, and such a short time span to 
> engage with the issue at the site of the cause of action arising 
> itself [given that the conference was in Marrakech for 5 days], I 
> might not have taken these steps that I felt constrained to later.
> Just pointing out, there is no trial, no court, and my statement is my 
> own, which I can back up with evidence. I do not understand why issues 
> of unfairness of procedure are being raised when there is /no 
> procedure in the first place/.
> I would really appreciate it, generally, if that were acknowledged.
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Padmini Baruah
> V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
> NLSIU, Bangalore
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Thank you very much for publishing this statement.  I think it is
>     very helpful, and indeed crystallizes some of the issues.
>     Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>     On 2016-03-23 22:44, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>     STATEMENT OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY EXECUTIVE
>>     COMMITTEE (NCUC-EC) ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT
>>
>>     Accusations of sexual harassment at ICANN 55 raise two issues,
>>     which must be kept distinct. One is whether this particular
>>     incident constituted sexual harassment and if so, what would be
>>     an appropriate response. The other is whether ICANN needs to be
>>     better prepared to handle situations like this with well-defined
>>     policies and procedures. We believe that these two issues are
>>     being confused.
>>
>>     With regard to the alleged incident, there is very little
>>     objective evidence, and the community is grappling with this
>>     issue in the absence of a clear, commonly accepted definition of
>>     sexual harassment.* We hope that this question is resolved fairly
>>     and proportionately through further investigation and
>>     verification rather than through allegations in public forums and
>>     email lists.
>>
>>     With regard to the second issue, we strongly agree that action
>>     needs to be taken and look forward to assisting the staff and the
>>     board with the development of appropriate policies and
>>     procedures. Since NCUC is a rights-focused stakeholder group, the
>>     Executive Committee takes a principled stance toward the issue
>>     and requests that any sexual harassment policy must:
>>
>>      a) be developed in an atmosphere of impartial, open discussion
>>     in which all viewpoints can be heard and respected;
>>      b) be based on clear, unambiguous definitions of sexual
>>     harassment that can be readily understood and applied by all
>>     ICANN participants;
>>      c) respect the privacy, procedural and substantive rights of
>>     both the accuser and the accused
>>
>>
>>
>>     * A typical definition of SH from U.S. law is: "Unwelcome sexual
>>     advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or
>>     physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment
>>     when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or
>>     implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
>>     submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is
>>     used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such
>>     individuals, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of
>>     unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or
>>     creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
>>     environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>     Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160324/9813f64d/attachment-0002.html>