[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy: Summary of Discussion So Far

[Corinne Cath]

+1 for Shane and rafik

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 07:51 Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Shane for refocusing us all and to Rafik for creating a Gdoc for the
> statement. Consensus around this issue is very important.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On 22 November 2016 at 08:36, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> thanks for this effort to summarise the discussion, really helpful.
> I think we can move those items to either google doc, etherpad and so on
> to work on the statement and let people comment directly or proposing edits
> there. definitely it is not early to start if we want to find a consensus
> based text. if everyone is ok, I can create a google doc quickly .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2016-11-22 14:15 GMT+09:00 Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Apologies if I mis-characterize the discussion. It is not my intent to
> pursue an agenda regarding the discussion here, but rather to try to
> see where we are at and to make sure that the topic doesn't get dropped.
>
> It seems there are some areas of agreement regarding ICANN's proposed
> anti-harassment policy, but also some areas of disagreement.
>
> Possible agreement:
>
> * The power of the ombudsperson in this process needs to be tempered
>   and/or changed.
>
> Probable disagreement:
>
> * Having a list of examples of harassment is a good idea.
> * We should have a procedure for dealing with vexatious complaints.
>
> Unsure:
>
> * Privacy of everyone should be insured by the process.
> * List of Specified Characteristic is unwieldy.
> * Ongoing harassment should be addressed.
> * Specific changes to the role of ombudsperson in the process. Perhaps a
>   separate, community (non-staff, non-board) position for this?
>
> I don't think that we can get consensus on the areas of disagreement.
>
> I would like to hope that we can get consensus on at least some of
> those that I am unsure about.
>
> There may be other issues that have not come up yet, of course.
>
> Possibly we'll need to commit to having an NCUC response as well as
> separate responses by people about issues of disagreement?
>
> Is it too early to start drafting text about what we do agree on?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161122/fc9204ed/attachment-0002.html>