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

[matthew shears]

+ 1 Rafik - that would be very helpful.


On 22/11/2016 06:36, Rafik Dammak 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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>         http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>         <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

-- 
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161122/d08ba848/attachment-0002.html>