I approve of sending this letter. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:32 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Updated GNSO Council Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Dear Councilors, Please see the attached draft letter, which is a clean copy of the most recent version reflecting edits made by Jennifer and Stephanie to the last draft proposed by Paul and incorporating Ed’s suggestion relating to a reference to the IETF. As mentioned by James yesterday, the plan is to send this version to Akram. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 09:23 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Much appreciated Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:20 PM To: Phil Corwin; Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Phil - Absolutely. Stand by for clean copy from Mary. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 21:11 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy James: I am not clear on exactly what the final draft text is. Can we please see the clean copy before it is dispatched to Akram? Thanks and best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 5:54 PM To: Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Thank you, Stephanie. And (again) to Jennifer for pulling this together. By now it’s clear that while no one is 100% satisfied with the draft letter, all Councilors should see their contributions reflected in the draft to some degree. Therefore, if there are any more final comments, please get them to the list in the next few hours. After that, I’ll ask Marika & team to put together a “clean” copy in the morning, and we’ll post to Akram and cc: this list. This is certainly just the beginning of the work to be done on this topic. I expect we have more conversations on this as the work goes on. Thanks— J. From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 16:25 To: Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel@gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, Jennifer Standiford <JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>> Cc: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Whatever folks wish. SP On 16-04-21 5:21 PM, Edward Morris wrote: Thanks for your editing Stephanie! It makes the letter much more effective. I'd like to get this done ASAP as well but I do have problems referring to only one organisation and a specific policy as a reference marker, particularly the IETF's. There are several aspects of the IETF policy I don't agree with (such as possible banning of offenders) and I believe that the policy itself would be illegal for a California public benefit corporation to adopt. Without dragging folks into a tedious legal analysis, I would note that the Declaration of Rights of the California Constitution has been held to apply to private firms if expressed in the affirmative (such as article 1, section 2, which refers to free speech; the affirmative expression of California speech rights differentiating it from the negative expression of such rights in the first amendment of the US Constitution) (Prunegard Shopping Center being the defining case extending such rights to private firms and facilities) and combined with California's expansive long arm statute (CA Civ Pro §410.10) could invalidate such a policy. While I did not oppose including the IETF policy and process when our proposed submission included multiple reference markers, including one developed internally, I am uncomfortable issuing a statement referencing only one policy because that could be perceived as a direct endorsement of Council. That the policy referenced may be illegal is also be a problem. Stephanie, would an alteration to your bullet point, such as the one that follows, be acceptable?: Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder character as an institution, would it be useful to consider how other comparable organisations, such as the IETF, have dealt with establishing similar policies? I'd be fine with that. Thanks for considering, Ed ________________________________ From: "Jennifer Gore Standiford" <JStandiford@web.com><mailto:JStandiford@web.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:43 PM To: "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>, "egmorris1@toast.net"<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>, "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel@gmail.com><mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org"<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org><council@gnso.icann.org><mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com><mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org><mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> Subject: RE: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Thanks Stephanie. Your additional bullet point below is acceptable to me. Does anyone else have additional thoughts? It would be great to close this out quickly. From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:23 PM To: Jennifer Gore Standiford; egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>; James M. Bladel; Marilia Maciel; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy I caught a couple of typos Jenn, and I would like to propose one addition....many of our members agree with Avri's suggestion (which I had included in the appendix, list of other resources) that we talk to the IETF, and look at their policy which they have recently completed. So I added another bullet for your consideration, Changes marked in Bold. Given the rather thorough trashing my late suggestions have already received, please feel free to completely ignore this contribution. Just trying to help.... Stephanie Perrin On 16-04-21 1:10 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote: Hello All, Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts by the council members regarding the draft letter to Akram on the subject of Harassment. After reaching what seems to be an agreement to exclude the attachment, I believe the pendulum has swung too far the other way by removing key content contained within James’ drafted letter. Please see a revised version of his letter below (with no attachment). I urge my peers to reach an agreement soon, so that the GNSO offers a voice on this issue while the topic remains relevant. - Jennifer Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN Dear Akram On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you for your recent blog post (“Conduct at ICANN Meetings”). Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all ICANN community members (shall)are able to participate and contribute within an environment that does not tolerate discrimination and remains free of harassment. Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject. When considering a policy to address this area, we respectfully ask for consideration regarding these key questions: · Would a policy enhance the current ‘Expected Standards of Behavior’ or remain independent? · How would reporting procedures be defined and who would be included in the reporting structure i.e. ICANN Staff, Office of the Ombudsman, or other entity? · What mechanism would be in place to enforce the policy and protect those involved in known incidents? * Given ICANN's rather unique, open, volunteer, multi-stakeholder character as an institution, would it be useful to consider how other comparable organizations have dealt with reporting and enforcement? We understand that the IETF has recently gone through a similar exercise, and it might be useful to reach out to them for ideas, both for process and substance. The new policy is here https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/04/team-to-help-regarding-harassment-concerns... We call upon the GNSO community to engage and participate, as we anticipate additional topics and questions will arise from these efforts. It is worth noting that other groups have begun work in this area (Statement from NCUC Executive Committee). We urge ICANN staff to incorporate these initial questions during the commencement of this exercise. We all agree that a new policy must ensure a healthy environment for all. Thank you Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:13 PM To: James M. Bladel; Marilia Maciel Cc: Paul McGrady; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.; Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Hi everybody, I must admit I'm not very happy with the way this conversation has gone. To be clear, I'm not too pulsed by the policy disagreements. I am a bit perturbed, though, at the timing of many of the contributions. We're better than this. Let me first extend my thanks and appreciation to Jennifer for her leadership and hard work on this effort. In the four plus years I have been involved with ICANN I can not recall ever having worked with someone whose passion, knowledge, competence and expertise I have come to so admire. I am honoured and humbled to serve on the same Council as she. I would also like to thank James, for his tireless effort to try to bring this matter to a conclusion. The small group proposal was posted to the Council list on 6 April. Stephanie, to her credit, was the only Councillor to indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the small group proposal between the time it was posted and our call on the 14th: the expected date of agreement and dispatch. I appreciate the preambles of many of those who weighed in late on the matter acknowledging the work of the small group who put together the initial proposal, but I'm not a big fan of those who weigh in last minute to criticise work they themselves chose not to participate in or object to in a timely manner. This matter obviously needed conversation but because of the lateness of most of the objections we didn't have time for that. We need to do better in the future and I'm sure we will. There is a proposed GNSO public comment on the FY17 budget and operating plan a few of us have worked on that is still out for work. There is a hard deadline of 30 April for submission. I believe we've set a deadline a few days earlier for objections, contributions and comments. It's still a skeleton paper and could use more meat. Contributions are not only welcome but are needed. I only ask you, my colleagues, to do your best to please voice any objections sooner rather than later. It's not good for the quality of discussion nor respectful to those of us who put together the initial documents to jump in with wholesale objections at deadline. Thank you for your consideration. As for the matter at hand: 1. There was never any attempt to create or signify GNSO policy in the initial proposal. Rather we were trying to include "reference markers" to possible policies. One was created by the small team, improved upon with suggestions by others. There were references to other external policies that we thought staff and board might want to consider. I have disagreements, some substantial, with each of the reference markers save the one we created. I did not object to their inclusion in the letter because I recognised what they were: markers, not concrete proposals. 2. I support the approach of the Business Constituency in a more specific form. My preference would be for the Board to ask ICANN Legal to draft a conference harassment policy, post the proposed policy for public comment and then have the Board act accordingly. I have complete confidence John Jeffrey and his team could and would produce a substantive policy proposal that we all could and would support. 3. I do not support the creation of a CCWG in this matter. Please see point 2 for my procedural preference. 4. I commend Amr for a very creative and substantive approach to the overall culture where certain forms of harassment have IMHO been made somewhat acceptable. Although I would prefer that ICANN legal develop an initial conference policy, I do believe Amr has several ideas that could in compliment really help us attack this problem. 5. I still prefer the initial proposal of the small team, mark 2 (as improved upon by James and staff), to any proposal that has since been produced. I recognise that there have been a number of objections, unwarranted in my view, to that approach and that we are unlikely at this time to achieve momentum in that direction. On the other hand, I should note that I find Paul's most recent proposal, while appreciating his effort, to be a bit too generic and lacking enough substance for me to be able to support As a compromise I am willing to accept and propose we go forward with James suggestion earlier today to proceed with the letter, minus the key points. I note that this approach seemed to meet with the approval of several Councillors (Jennifer, Keith, Amr, Marilia) and I add my support to theirs. It's time to get this letter out. Respectfully, Ed ________________________________ From: "Marilia Maciel" <mariliamaciel@gmail.com<mailto:mariliamaciel@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:07 AM To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Hi James and all, I would rather support your original letter. It was concise, but made the relevant points that need to be made. Due to personal problems I have been null on this discussions and I publicly apologise to the colleagues that carried the piano - particularly Jennifer and Ed. I think Jennifer put forward an excellent proposal and I personally disagree with the points that were made that ended watering it to the text that we have in front of us. What we are discussing is relevant to GNSO constituencies and I believe we are in no way out of our remit here. However, I do understand my comment is not timely. Let's just not weaken the message any further. And we absolutely need a separate policy on harassment. Thank you Marília On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:34 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - This is a reasonable and perhaps minimalist response, but does it strip away too much substance? Also, with the removal of the middle section, I recommend some minor edits (below). Thoughts from the others on this? There is no firm deadline for a response, but we need to bring this work to a sensible conclusion that everyone can support. Thanks‹ J. _____________ Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN Dear Akram On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you for your recent blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²) . Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated. Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject in a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure the our mutual goal. We look forward to participating the process to develop such a policy, and expect that members of the GNSO community will also be engaged in this effort within their own Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. Some have already undertaken work in their own groups (by way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee² which can be found here [link]). We urge the Board and Staff to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue. Please keep us informed of your work and how we may help. Thank you Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair On 4/20/16, 13:17 , "owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
Thanks James and all. I think dropping the specific recommendations documents makes a lot of sense. Here is a proposed revised cover to Akram:
Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN
Dear Akram
On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank you for your recent blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²) . Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated. We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in this effort within their own Constituencies, Advisory Committees, etc. and note that some have already undertaken work in their own groups (by way of example the ³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee² which can be found here [link]). We urge the Board and Staff to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue.
Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject in a manner which results in a suitable policy designed to ensure the our mutual goal. We look forward to participating the process to develop such a policy. Please keep us informed of your work and how we may help.
Thank you
Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 05:45 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: Stephanie Perrin; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
I want to restate my +1 to Paul´s comments very specifically on the way he has phrased some issues questions
I guess I have my doubts in general about this being the role of the GNSO Council.
me too
Clearly, this is an important issue which affects all members of the ICANN community, and not just members of the GNSO.
exactly
Wouldn't a simple letter (1) making note of the event, (2) making note of the lack of a clear policy, and (3) asking the Board to launch a CCWG to address this issue (if the Board believes that it and Staff together cannot or should not for some reason), be sufficient? I just don't see how the Council should be in the business of making specific policy recommendations without a policy process.
see under ³picket fence²
The Council is not a legislative body - our role is to play traffic cop to grass roots movements, right?
thats the way I see it and why I added my +1
Thanks, and sorry if I am missing something here!
I miss clear guidelines from the Corporation on engagement rules for participants in f2f meetings (like the ones we have in adobe connect rooms).
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
Best, Paul
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy From: Stephanie Perrin <[stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.uto<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.uto> ronto.ca<http://ronto.ca>)> Date: Wed, April 06, 2016 1:31 pm To: "[council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)" <[council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)>
and one more time.... SP
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:28:01 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>>](mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.uto<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.uto> ronto.ca<http://ronto.ca>) To: Jennifer Gore Standiford [<JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>>](mailto:JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>), James M. Bladel [<jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>](mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>), Austin, Donna [<Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>](mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>), Phil Corwin [<psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>](mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>), GNSO Council List [<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>](mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)
I am sorry to be late with my feedback. This is a great effort so far, but I must say I find it a wee bit over the top. Let me explain why:
* The list of offensive (inappropriate of unwanted) conduct is exhaustive but not necessarily helpful. "at a minimum" needs to go, as Phil has pointed out. The problem in harassment policies in my view arises in the matter of how to determine "offensive" now "inappropriate", particularly across cultures. It would be more helpful to expand on this, explaining the cross-cultural nature of ICANN and give guidance on how to conduct oneself _tentatively_.....eg. if you are Dutch and in the habit of greeting people with three kisses, ask first. I don't think we want to shut down normal gestures of familiarity and affection, but maybe we do....it is worth a discussion. The other part that needs to go unless you want us all to be tied into legal quandries is this: "or any other category protected by any applicable governing law". What are the laws of Finland on public deportment, discrimination, etc. ? Where do we go next, how do I check the laws there? I don't find this helpful. If you are going to include language like this, we will have to have the already burdened Constituency Travel send out advisories: eg. When in Turkey, do not make jokes about Ataturk as it is forbidden by law, etc. etc.
* There needs to be a section discussing the rights of the accused, and their rights to confidentiality. It is my view that we need a privacy policy more than a harassment policy, because I feel that inappropriate conduct is in fact already covered by our acceptable conduct policy, but here we are anyway. The accused has a right to have investigations conducted properly, and in confidence in my view, so how that is going to take place, who does them, when the accuser is permitted to go public,etc. needs quite a bit of work.
* "By participating in an ICANN conference, you agree to prohibit harassment....."
I actually think we should not demand that anyone who agrees to participate in an ICANN conference should have to agree to take on the role of enforcer of a harassment policy. Further on this:
* "You shall report any actions that you believe may violate our policy no matter how slight the actions might seem".
This is not necessary. Anyone who experiences harassment ought to be capable of determining themselves whether there was abuse, let us not invite people to interfere with other people's jokes unless those jokes are offending them, the listener. In other words, I take no offence at Michele N calling me a crazy tree-hugger, and I really don't want to be dragged into Chris Lahatte's office to discuss it just because someone overheard it and felt I ought to be offended. Now if they are offended, (eg. they are a tree-hugger and are offended at the suggestion that I ought to be considered in that group) they can make their own complaint and leave me out of it. In a policy such as this, one has to be quite careful about how wide one opens the door.
However, thanks to all who worked on this, it is very difficult to craft a good harassment policy and enforcement mechanism, and my hat is off to you on efforts so far. I would also like to apologize to anyone whom I have either touched or kissed hello over the three years I have been attending ICANN. I meant no harm, I spent too much time in Montreal (where we kiss everybody only twice) and I will strive to be more guarded in future.
I spent a year working in our central agency in the Canadian Government, working on the ethics code and a limited time also on evaluating workplace wellness (including harassment) policies and implementation in the departments. I like the Canadian approach, and offer you the link here: [](http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp)[<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp%29%5b>
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp](http:/<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp%5d%28http:/> /www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp>). In particular, the tools that help evaluate whether an act constitutes harassment I think are useful: [](http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.as
p)[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp](<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp%5d%28> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/mibh-sjh-eng.asp). They put an emphasis on the activity needing to be repeated, or one action to be extreme...this may be more applicable in a workplace environment but I think the tests are nevertheless relevant.
Cheers Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-04-06 15:00, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:
James and Colleagues,
Thanks to Donna and Phil for their constructive feedback. With that, please review and provide any additional feedback based on the revised draft ŒICANN Conference Harassment Key Points for Consideration¹.
The attached addresses the following feedback received thus far, in particular:
Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a community ICANN attendee policy? Included the following sentence: ŒThe term ³ICANN Conference Attendees² includes event registered and non-registered participants, sponsors, contractors, consultants, staff and board members.¹
This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive (indicated by the words ³At a minimum² that start the document) Removed term ³ At a minimum²
The use of the modifier ³Offensive² at the start of sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the question ³offensive to whom²? In this regard, I think there must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may nonetheless do so. Replaced the word Œ offensive¹ with Œunwanted¹ or Œinappropriate¹
A need to strictly define, and limit, the ³prompt, appropriate remedial action² that ICANN staff may take if they determine that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should be separate). Change verbiage to state ŒICANN staff is required toŠ¹ instead of Œmay¹
Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or must report it. Change the verbiage to sake of consistency. Opted for Œshould/shall¹ vs. Œrequired/will¹
The outstanding questions that James has outline should remain included in the GNSO letter to ensure each item is addressed.
Thanks Jennifer
**From:** James M. Bladel [[mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>)]
**Sent:** Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:57 PM **To:** Jennifer Gore Standiford; Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; GNSO Council List **Subject:** Re: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Thanks Jennifer, Phil and Donna for weighing in.
Perhaps the concern is that we¹ve called this document a ³draft² but it too closely resembles a finished policy. I believe (and I think Jennifer¹s note confirms) that this was intended to start a dialogue in whatever subsequent group addresses this work, and a mechanism for relaying GNSO ideas, questions and concerns in to that effort.
I appreciate the discussion, and hope that we can all get to a place where we¹re either comfortable with the draft, or we amend it, or substitute it with something else.
Thanks‹
**From:** Jennifer Standiford <[JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>](mailto:JStandiford@web.com<mailto:JStandiford@web.com>)>
**Date:** Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:46 **To:** "Austin, Donna" <[](mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>)[Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>](mailt o:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:o%3ADonna.Austin@neustar.biz>)>, Phil Corwin <[psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>](mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>)>, James Bladel <[jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>)>, GNSO Council List <[council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)> **Subject:** RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Hi Phil and Colleagues,
Just a friendly reminder the attached document that was put forth in the GNSO Letter to Akram was referred to as a draft. James also included several questions that remain unanswered that will need to be address in addition to the points that you and Donna have raised. As for Donna¹s specific question, I would anticipate that ICANN Conference Participants would be a defined term that would include all ICANN staff and board members.
Jennifer
**From:** [owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>) [[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann> .org)] **On Behalf Of** Austin, Donna
**Sent:** Wednesday, April 06, 2016 1:36 PM **To:** Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List **Subject:** [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Hi Phil
It¹s a good point and also raises another one for me. Are Dr Crocker and the other Board members covered under the ICANN staff policy on Sexual Harassment or would they be covered under a community ICANN attendee policy?
Donna
**From:**[](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>)[owner-council@gnso.ic<mailto:owner-council@gnso.ic> ann.org<http://ann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>) [[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann> .org)] **On Behalf Of** Phil Corwin
**Sent:** Wednesday, 6 April 2016 9:33 AM **To:** James M. Bladel <[](mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>)[jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>](mailto:jbladel@<mailto:jbladel@> godaddy.com<http://godaddy.com>)>; GNSO Council List <[council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>)> **Subject:** [council] RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Thinking about this a bit more how would this incident be treated under any proposed Harassment Policy?
[](http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risky-caitlyn- jenner-joke)[http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches-with-risk y-caitlyn-jenner-joke](http://domainincite.com/18772-icann-53-launches -with-risky-caitlyn-jenner-joke)
Some found it offensive, and an apology was issued by Chairman Crocker. Is that sufficient or would reporting and investigation be required?
**Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal** **Virtualaw LLC** **1155 F Street, NW** **Suite 1050** **Washington, DC 20004** **202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct** **202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax** **202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell** ** ** **Twitter: @VlawDC**
**_"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey_**
**From:** Phil Corwin
**Sent:** Wednesday, April 06, 2016 12:07 PM **To:** 'James M. Bladel'; GNSO Council List **Subject:** RE: For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Colleagues:
I support in principle sending a letter to Akram on this subject and establishing clearer, enforceable policies regarding sexual and other forms of harassment that may take place at ICANN meetings.
However, while I am strongly opposed to any form of such harassment, I have some concerns about the proposed draft Harassment Policy, relating to: · This very extensive list of potential offenses being non-exclusive (indicated by the words ³At a minimum² that start the document) · The use of the modifier ³Offensive² at the start of sections 1-4, in that this subjective standard inevitably raises the question ³offensive to whom²? In this regard, I think there must be some element of intent to harass or demean in the behavior subject to sanction, and that any policy should recognize that the cultural diversity of ICANN meeting attendees may lead to situations where remarks that are not intended to offend may nonetheless do so. · A need to strictly define, and limit, the ³prompt, appropriate remedial action² that ICANN staff may take if they determine that harassment has occurred (as well as whether ICANN staff are the appropriate parties to undertake such investigations, and whether the investigatory and judgmental/sanctioning roles should be separate). · Contradictory language regarding whether an individual who believes that he/she has witnessed harassment should report it, or must report it.
I look forward to engaging in a discussion of these matters on our call of April 14th.
Best regards, Philip
**Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal** **Virtualaw LLC** **1155 F Street, NW** **Suite 1050** **Washington, DC 20004** **202-559-8597/Direct** **202-559-8750/Fax** **202-255-6172/Cell** ** ** **Twitter: @VlawDC**
**_"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey_**
**From:**[](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>)[owner-council@gnso.ic<mailto:owner-council@gnso.ic> ann.org<http://ann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>) [[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>](mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann> .org)] **On Behalf Of** James M. Bladel
**Sent:** Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 PM **To:** GNSO Council List **Subject:** [council] For Discussion: GNSO Letter to Akram Atallah re: ICANN Harassment Policy
Council Colleagues ‹
Attached and copied below, please find a draft letter from the Council to Akram Atallah, in response to his recent blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²
[](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings)[https://www .icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings](https://www.icann.org/new<http://icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings%5d%28https:/www.icann.org/new> s/blog/conduct-at-ICANN-meetings)).
In this note, I set out to make some high-level points that support further work in this area, without weighing in on any specific indecent. Also, the letter references a statement from the NCUC ExCom (³Statement from NCUC Executive Committee² [](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html )[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html] (http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)) and the ICANN Harassment Policy drafted by our volunteers (attached), and urges any future effort to consider these materials.
If possible, please review these documents prior to our next call on 14 APR. We can collect edits and then decide if/how we want to proceed.
Thank you,
J.
* * *
Akram Atallah COO and interim CEO, ICANN
Dear Akram
On behalf of the GNSO Council, we would like to thank your for your recent blog post (³Conduct at ICANN Meetings²). Members of the Council, and all of the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, share the goal of ensuring that all members of the community can participate in and contribute to ICANN, in an environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated.
Without passing judgment on any specific incident, we are encouraged by the commitment from Staff and the Board to engage the community on this subject. In support of this, volunteers on the Council have prepared a draft (³ICANN Conference Harassment Policy², attached). Several questions remain open, however, including:
? Whether this Policy would enhance, or be distinct from, the existing Expected Standards of Behavior policy ? Whether complaints would be reported to ICANN Staff, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or some other entity or group ? How the policy will be enforced, and ? Other topics and questions that will arise from this work.
We expect that members of the GNSO community will be engaged in this effort, and note that some have already undertaken work in their own groups (³Statement from NUCU Executive Committee²). We urge this group to consider these materials in any community undertaking to develop new policy addressing this issue.
Thank you
Donna Austin, GNSO Vice-Chair James Bladel, GNSO Chair Heather Forrest, GNSO Vice-Chair
[](https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings)[https://<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%29%5bhttps:/> www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings](https://www.icann.o<http://www.icann.org/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings%5d%28https:/www.icann.o> rg/news/blog/conduct-at-icann-meetings)
[](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html )[http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html] (http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-March/018488.html)
* * * No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - [www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ww w.avg.com<http://w.avg.com>&d=CwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr5 6eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=GTJBGbCRyivgpW19dk4dofA96i5L2FtmkxBrrkb_voc& s=Wc6g-4Lo0XrpvCus6DBuVDgfsaHZUFkJkS6hjLLPAak&e=) Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11942 - Release Date: 04/02/16
-- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu<http://www.diplomacy.edu> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.