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

[hfaiedh ines]

+ 1 absolutely that would be more efficient.

Le mardi 22 novembre 2016, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> a écrit :

> + 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org');>
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo]
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161122/aa87e3cb/attachment-0002.html>