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

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.

Refer to Ayden's comments. Yes, someone should be able to make a claim based on their word. But any action or sanctions related to that claim must require corroboration of some kind. The Ombudsman is not God, with immediate and omniscient knowledge of the validity of all assertions, and whether someone is a "victim" or is making a false claim. This is an empirical, factual question. We cannot deem someone a victim simply because they claim they are a victim - such a policy opens the door to as much abuse as it might counteract. Is that not obvious? If I claim that you raped me in Hyderabad, do you not think that such a claim needs to have some corroboration before you are banned from the community or put in jail? 

> Maybe something like: during the research the ombudsperson will keep the
> personal identifiable information of the people involved confidential.

Works for me

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

That's the point. No one can possibly describe all forms of harassment. There has to be a general principle of what constitutes harassment and the job of the Ombuds and the policy is to find out whether the specific action meets those general criteria. Lists of specific actions can be both overinclusive and uinderinclusive, which is why the list has a "but not limited to" clause, which means the list is essentially meaningless as a guide anyway.

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

Well that magic word seems to be missing from major parts of the list.
 
> > 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'.

That's not a very helpful observation. It's obvious that an anti-harassment policy can conflict with or chill free expression among people in the ICANN environment. 

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

I like the original statement better. My concern was with where to put it, not with modifying it.