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

[Niels ten Oever]

Hi Renata,

Response inline:

On 11/16/2016 03:02 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
> Hi
> 
> MM:
>> 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.
> 
> I agree
> 
> SK:
>>> 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
>> MM:
>> 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.
> 
> And there is an elephant in the room that we have not spoken about here.
> 
> In ICANN57, a public forum speaker from the audience, from this
> community, was incredibly stalked in and out of the public forum, on
> other list too, and it culminated w/ a request - public and privately
> conducted by a group - to have the contribution striked from ICANN's
> public records!
> Attempts to disqualify or intimidate someone just because you don't
> like what they are saying also constitute harrassment.
> In my view, way more harmful harassment than the some of the horrible
> list contained in this policy.
> 
> So let's take this situation. How would this work if this policy was
> effective? Or ICANN's current standards, for that matter.
> Proactive action did not occur. Not even records, I believe, from the
> ombuds part.
> Could the ombuds do anything other than be a sympathetic ear if any of
> the parties decided to contact about this?
> If action was needed, such as issuing a statement about public records
> not being "deletable" or investigating and recommending a restriction
> order or even a community ban, could the ombuds do it?
> Does not seem likely.
> Nothing would happen.
> Nothing did happen.

Was a complaint made to the ombudsperson? If not, let's give the proces
a try, no?

> 
> So, I am clear to the fact the the ombuds has no power to proceed to
> effect measures on harassment charges and is inherently bound by
> obligation to safeguard ICANN, not its community members.

Based on what do you come to this conclusion?


> However, i am not sure who could do this. I don't think it is HR too
> as they also represent staff and are bound by obligation to defend
> them and supervise them.
> So I see a need of third party, maybe a committee, to be selected to
> deal with such matters.

That's why ombudsperson normally has own budget + independence.

> The existence of this committee does not substitute the participation
> of ombuds and HR or even law enforcement when they are necessary to
> reach a conclusion.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Renata
> _______________________________________________
> 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