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

Thu Jan 12 20:22:13 CET 2017

I submitted the public comment. Thanks everyone.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:43 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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_zCbv2RbLA5ypUnWm
>> wNpTte8lyUOuSzlvToXHLrQ/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/20170112/9faa07a2/attachment.html>