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

Mon Mar 21 21:26:01 CET 2016

Hi Milton,

On Mar 22, 2016 5:09 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

It is unfortunate that you are implying I am dividing us by country. What I
highlighted is that argument raised here usually come from what seems an US
vision of freedom of expression . I heard other colleagues like those  from
europe and they dont have the same interpretation. I would like that we
build on what we have in common which remains UNDHR and its convenants. You
can also recall that I advised against cultural dimesion because I believe
in the universal aspect.

I am arguing about the case by this merits that is why I dont want NCUC to
get into the morass of the polemic about  revealing or not the name of
accuser but creating a real functioning policy .

Anyway I am moving away from this element of the discussion.

>
> 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.
>

We  are in agreement here and that is what I indicated in my email.

>
> 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.
>
>

Yes. Same as previous comment.

> 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.

>

Again we are agreement here.
Thanks Milton.

Rafik

> --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>:
>>
>> 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]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 7:16 PM
>>
>>
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> Cc: 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>
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>
>>> Cc: 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>
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
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> 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/20160322/872c625a/attachment.html>