[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy Comment Period

[Niels ten Oever]

Milton,

On 11/16/2016 06:55 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Here are some of my views on the Anti-harassment policy
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> My main concern with the proposed policy is the role of the
>> ombudsperson [snip] It seems to grant complete and arbitrary power
>> to a single individual.
> 
> I agree, and the current interim ombudsman has a demonstrated
> tendency to arbitrary and biased behavior. Here are some
> modifications to make to the policy to rectify this problem. One
> thing we can certainly agree on: STRIKE the sentence "No
> corroboration is required to support a finding." What an astounding
> statement! The Ombuds can make a finding without any need for
> evidence? What possible reason could there be for including this? It
> has to go. We could also move to strike the phrase "in the
> Ombudsperson’s discretion" wherever it appears.
> 

No, simply no. This means that the word of a victim, or even a group of
victims, would not be sufficient for a claim. Miltons proposal would
make this statement wweaker than what we have in much applicable law.


>> No discussion is made for privacy of any of the participants in the
>> procedure description. I don't have any recommendations here, but
>> it seems like it should be explicitly addressed.
> 
> Not a helpful observation unless you do have a recommendation to
> make.

Sigh. Of course comments without proposals are helpful.

Maybe something like: during the research the ombudsperson will keep the
personal identifiable information of the people involved confidential.
> 
>> I REALLY LIKE the list documenting what harassment is. As I
>> understand it, that is best practice in codes of conduct these
>> days. It makes it better for
> 
> I don't. 

I do

> I think the list is absurd. Also, keep  in mind that it
> "include[s], but are not limited to" the list of things, so it's
> entirely open-ended. 

Do you have a proposal to describe all possible forms of harassment?

> One obvious problem with the list is that some
> of the bullet points have no reference to whether the conduct is
> undesired or not. Specifically, bullets 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8. "Kissing,
> fondling, hugging, stroking someone’s hair, or brushing against
> another’s body" is perfectly OK if the person on the receiving end
> wants it. 

Consent is the magic word here. Don't assume it is wanted unless the
other person let's you know.

> It is nonsensical to declare categorically that these
> behaviors constitute "harassment" irrespective of whether the people
> involved are, say, married or otherwise consenting.
> 
> I am also puzzled by the statement "This Policy is not intended to
> impede or inhibit free speech." While I wholeheartedly support the
> sentiment behind that qualification, it is placed as a footnote
> appended to the title, rather than fully incorporated into the
> policy.

This is not a 'free speech policy', but an 'anti-harrassment policy'.
But if you feel strongly about it we could propose something like:

To be an inclusive space where people can express their opinion freely,
participants in ICANN’s multistakeholder processes must:

> 
> The policy should also explicitly recognize that anti-harassment
> policies can themselves be used to harass or intimidate people, or
> exploited to silence critics.
> 

Why? Does this happen? Or is this just victim shaming and empowering
perpetrators?

Cheers,

Niels

> 
> Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia
> Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project 
> http://internetgovernance.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing
> list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org 
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9