[NCUC-EC] Proposed statement on the sexual harassment issue

Mon Mar 21 21:09:15 CET 2016

Rafik

I think it's unfortunate that you have made a freedom of expression issue a nation-vs-nation issue, by dismissing free speech as something unique to the United States of America. The right of free expression is a universal human right and even if it were not recognized by Article 19, the people who support free speech in this instance are not necessarily Americans and are not necessarily arguing that something is right because it is in the American constitution. That is a completely unfair representation of our views.

Can we please get beyond that stuff and argue the case on the merits? Or do you want to divide us by country?

We have a lot going on here, and Padmini's right to send information or make accusations is clear - regardless of what law we are under. I cannot imagine a situation in which someone would not have that right to say publicly, "I have been abused and here is the person I think did it."

While I support her right to speak out absolutely, it doesn't mean I agree with what she is doing. The statement I proposed was not, in fact, intended to support Padmini or her statement.

I think what we as NCUC need to make clear in this context is that we need to establish factually what actually happened in this case, and whether it actually constituted sexual harassment. We all seem to be assuming that it was.

Whatever policy ICANN adopts must be based not on a reactive hysteria or politically correct stereotypes, but on fair and carefully applied standards. Just as sexual harassment is an abuse, so can accusations of sexual harassment be abused. Since NCUC is rights-focused I want us to take a principled stand in this controversial and divisive area. We need to guard against hysterical overreactions and public manipulations just as much as we need to guard against sexual harassment.

--MM

Thanks for suggesting this Milton.
I think that may be useful to give the context for this statement. I think most of us are aware about the sexual harassment incident that happened in Marrakech meeting and when Padmini speaked out about it during the NCSG-Board meeting. the statement is supposed to support her and urging for creating anti-harassment policy.

however, she sent a statement in the last days to several public lists, including ncuc list, disclosing her communication with ombudsman and revealing the identity of the accused. NCUC was mentioned in her statement too. some NCUC folks felt that revealing the name of the accused was not appropriate and raises legal question. I understand that Padmini is taking the full responsibility of her actions her . We will continue to support her with regard to the establishing a general anti-harassment policy , pressing ICANN and board to do so but it is unlikely to be entirely behind the approach followed.

personally, I don't want NCUC to get into this polemic , to which we cannot have a clear and common position with regard the approach followed in this case. I would prefer support a more general policy and creating a clear process that work  first by preventing those incidents from happening and then handling them effectively when they happen . we are a group who tended to be impacted by those bypassing processes, so we have to be consistent here.

I want also to remind that the rest of the world is not ruled by US bill of rights and the first amendment, it is also neither a litigious society where things are solved mostly via courts nor is tribal society making justice by themselve . Freedom of speech is a right but not absolute and there are limitations outlined by law.
We have to appreciate this side as we are a diverse group and we claim to be , in public.

looking to hear from others. for now, I am trying to weigh what we would like to achieve here and what can be the impact of our message here .

Best,

Rafik

2016-03-20 8:25 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
I am in total agreement. The accuser should have the right to speak out and in fact the Ombuds himself recognizes that his communications with a party can be revealed by that party, and I think Padmini has made the point that she takes responsibility for her accusations.

It was a mistake for the statement to imply that there should be any restriction on the free speech rights of the accuser. I will fix it.

--MM

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 7:16 PM

To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Proposed statement on the sexual harassment issue

Yes, it is only a sub-point to 1 that I don't like, regarding not being able to state who the alleged harasser is.

Thanks,
Robin

On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:44 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

So you only don't like point 1?
What about the other points?

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 6:20 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-EC] Proposed statement on the sexual harassment issue

I have big problems with this statement.  If I believe someone harasses me, you can bet I reserve my right to say so, publicly, if I want.  And I must take responsibility for the statements - if they are false, I can be sued for defamation.  The other person can always give another side to the story.  An accusation is only an accusation.

I would not support a NCUC statement that requires people who believed they were harassed to be quiet about it.  Sorry, this proposed statement goes way too far in infringing free speech in my view.

Robin

On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

Dear fellow EC members:

Three of us have developed the following statement to address the controversy. Please let us know quickly whether you support it.

STATEMENT OF THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

In response to Ms. Padmini Baruah's "Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN 55" the NCUC Executive Committee wishes to make it clear that:

1. NCUC EC supports the development of a policy on sexual harassment by ICANN, but we do not support the disclosure of the name of the accused and the content of private correspondence on open mailing lists. We firmly believe that privacy and confidentiality are essential rights that both accused and accuser should enjoy equally.

2. We believe an adoption of a policy that clearly defines the process and imposes proper safeguards for both sides will allow such controversies to be avoided in the future.

3. In order to avoid the potential for abuse of such a policy and to avoid inculcating a climate of fear and intimidation around interpersonal interactions in the diverse ICANN community, any such policy must:

     a) be developed in an atmosphere of impartial, open discussion in which all viewpoints can be heard

     b) be based on clear, unambiguous standards that can be readily understood by ICANN participants

     c) respect the procedural and substantive rights of both the accuser and the accused

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec

_______________________________________________
NCUC-EC mailing list
NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20160321/4e4a1055/attachment.html>