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

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Hi

Yes, I was agreeing on submitting it. Also I shared criticism, but I'm
guessing building (and participating) in future processes would be
best.

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:22 PM, farzaneh badii
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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] 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
>>> >
>>
>>
>