[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from NCUC executive committee

[Padmini]

Dear Stephanie
You are very spot on when you say more work needs to be done. I do believe
there is an absolute vacuum on procedures for sexual harassment that are
impartial, diverse and reflective of fairness. Therefore, on issues like
say privacy, confidentiality, definition alone, there are significant
lacunae. That is what I meant.

Padmini Baruah
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
NLSIU, Bangalore

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160324/f2604b4c/attachment-0002.html>