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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

please find the google doc here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit

Best,

Rafik

2016-11-23 3:20 GMT+09:00 hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>:

> + 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>:
>>>
>>>> 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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161123/b40ead19/attachment-0002.html>