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

[farzaneh badii]

Also an administrative annoying note:  we need to decide if we want to make
a comment through NCSG or NCUC. if NCSG, lets tranfer this discussion to
that list. if NCUC then keep it here.

Best

Farzaneh

On 16 November 2016 at 10:39, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161116/a5e03834/attachment-0002.html>