[NCUC-EC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] FW: Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment

Thu Jan 12 17:43:02 CET 2017

My early morning response was to the wrong thread. Sorry for that. But I
saw Ines endorsed it.

Here is Addition of Milton's Comment done by Corinne I paste it here and
it's attached. I think we can go ahead and submit it including Milton's
changes since we received no objections. If I don't hear anything by 7 PM
UTC, I will submit the document attached.

***

This is what Milton proposed:

"What is in the draft now is at the end of the paragraph.

“Similarly, consensual activities should not be covered by this policy.”

That statement needs to be expanded and put at the beginning of the
paragraph it is in. My suggestion:

“The policy as drafted contains a major oversight, in that it implies that
certain kinds of behavior are not allowed per se. It completely overlooks
the issue of whether the parties involved in hugging, touching, etc. are
willing or consenting to the activity. The policy must make it clear that
consensual activities are not covered by this policy.”

This is how I updated the paragraph:

"Second, consensual activities should not be covered by this policy. The
policy as drafted contains an important oversight, in that it implies that
certain kinds of behavior are not allowed per se. It overlooks the issue of
whether the parties involved in certain behaviour are willing or consenting
to the activity. The policy must make it clear that consensual activities
are not covered by this policy. Additionally, we believe it is important to
include the notion of affirmative consent[1]
<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#m_-2247085009992060964_m_8998867765028871831__ftn1>
on
which to base the understanding of what constitutes harassment in general,
and sexual harassment in particular. This is good common practice for
anti-harassment policies, and common in anti-harassment laws"

You will find the document in the attachment. Please let me know if you
need additional information from my side.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> This work will inevitably move forward. So NCUC should be a part of it.
>
> However, I would like to second Anna's process concerns.
>
> And add to those other concerns.
>
> The public comments process is currently done by a small circle of
> participants, who leads this process and how it finishes depends
> immensely on who these participants are.
> The theme of this particular public comment deals with issues of
> intimidation and power, the core nature of harassment, and it is very
> unfortunate the final comment is a byproduct of a process which left
> room for improvement when it comes to empowerment and transparency in
> collaborative processes.
> I thought about abstaining from moving this forward but I also believe
> that the best way to counter harassment and to discuss ways to fight
> it is to talk about it. So this result is better than no result. And
> hopefully next processes are improved.
>
> Best,
>
> Renata
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Farzaneh,
> >
> >
> >>
> >> We are in need of a  written process for issuing public comment and I
> will
> >> certainly follow up on this.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I proposed a while ago to NCSG policy committee some idea for creating
> > process and timeline to handle public comment and ensure that we covers
> > more, you can find the thread here
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-December/003349.html
> .
> > that can be definitely tweaked for NCUC case and adding probably more
> > details about definition of level of consensus regarding a statement. we
> can
> > also learn from what we did for bylaws change consultation. another idea,
> > Brenden and I propsoed before it is to do some policy position polling
> using
> > such tool https://ncuc.adhocracy.de/instance/ncuc
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for being late with these comments but I’ve been busy and haven’t
> >>> had time to read these until today.
> >>>
> >>> I think Corinne’s draft is ok but it does not prominently deal with a
> >>> major objection that was raised during the constituency’s discussion,
> namely
> >>> the issue of whether the behavior is consensual.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What is in the draft now is at the end of the paragraph
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> “Similarly, consensual activities should not be covered by this
> policy.”
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That statement  needs to be expanded and put at the beginning of the
> >>> paragraph it is in. My suggestion:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> “The policy as drafted contains a major oversight, in that it implies
> >>> that certain kinds of behavior are not allowed per se. It completely
> >>> overlooks the issue of whether the parties involved in hugging,
> touching,
> >>> etc. are willing or consenting to the activity. The policy must make it
> >>> clear that consensual activities are not covered by this policy.”
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It makes more sense to put the business about “affirmative consent”
> >>> _after_ that statement, as it clarifies what we mean by consent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --MM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of
> >>> farzaneh badii
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:54 PM
> >>> To: Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
> >>> Subject: [NCUC-EC] Urgent - Anti harassment policy public comment
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please read this public comment on  anti-harassment policy. Corinne was
> >>> the penholder, NCUC members have had the chance to comment until today
> and
> >>> Corinne has resolved their comments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please read, and decide on endorsing it. The deadline for submitting it
> >>> is 12 January I think, we should decide before 12th Jan. As soon as we
> >>> endorse I will submit it acknowledging Corinne as the penholder.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here is the link to the google
> >>> doc.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YeZ_
> zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWmwNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/edit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Farzaneh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20170112/800b41ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC comment on proposed anti-harassment policy January 2017 (1).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21660 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170112/800b41ef/attachment.docx>