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

[farzaneh badii]

I do not feel comfortable at all with ombudsperson being involved with
this. Most of the time they are men, most of the time they are untrained to
handle sexual harassment issues. and I have other issues with the document.
Will someone hold that golden pen and write up things so that we can
discuss on the document what we want to put in?

Ombudsperson independence is thoroughly hampered in ICANN setting. In my
opinion, no don't go that way. At least not until ombuds office has been
shaped in a way that maintains independence.

On 16 November 2016 at 10:34, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>



-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161116/49f416d2/attachment-0002.html>