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

[Norbert Klein]

+1

Norbert Klein

=

On 11/16/2016 4:55 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 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.
>   
>> 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 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.
> 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. 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.
>
> The policy should also explicitly recognize that anti-harassment policies can themselves be used to harass or intimidate people, or exploited to silence critics.
>
>
> 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