Harassment and Helsinki

[Stephanie Perrin]

I am so sorry to be late in joining this conversation, as I am the 
councilor who, as Ed has stated, criticised the draft that he had 
developed largely with Jennifer Standiford.  I was driving all day from 
Toronto to Ottawa, so was unable to comment earlier.  Let me clarify a 
few things.

1.  I did not join this Council drafting group even though I have had 
quite a bit of experience in dealing with harassment policies in my 
recent 30 years working for the Canadian government.  There were already 
4/6 of our NCSG councilors on that team, we need to practice what we 
preach and avoid piling on.  When I saw the draft policy that Ed has 
mentioned in his opening paragraphs, I asked that the NCSG discuss our 
position at our policy meeting April 14th.  I raised my objections to 
the draft moving forward in the Council meeting (also April 14th, 
transcript here http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar). I 
do think we need to discuss this among our members before we send 
something to Council.  I also commented extensively on the document on 
April 17th, on the GNSO council list as requested by the Chair (to all 
of us).  Those interested in checking the debates on this matter can 
find the emails back and forth on the GNSO Council site here: 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/mail7.html. The 
original post with proposed letter and policy was sent by James Bladel 
April 4th, I believe.

2.  I did indeed say that I thought we needed a privacy policy first, 
but not because I do not agree that a harassment policy would be a great 
thing to have.  We already had a problem in hand, in that until ICANN 
develops a decent privacy policy, there is no real expectation of 
privacy in the testimony that might be given in a case.  The ombudsman 
conducts his investigations in confidence, and respects the privacy of 
complainants, but there is nothing that can be done if one or another 
party chooses to release sensitive personal information.  A privacy 
policy needs to exist, so that expectations can be set realistically, 
particularly for potential witnesses who may suffer repercussions for 
coming forward.  In my years of working as a Privacy Coordinator in the 
federal government in Canada, I found that this tension between the 
rights of the accused, the protection of the accuser and witnesses, and 
the desire for an open justice system is one of the thorniest problems 
to solve in any institution.  ICANN is an even trickier one, given its 
voluntary multi-stakeholder modeI, global reach, and changing 
jurisdictions.  In my view it is quite complex.

I was part of a group of Privacy Coordinators (the government employees 
tasked with implementing freedom of information and privacy law in 
Canada) who created a report to Parliament human resources matters early 
in my career, in 1987.  I wish I could say we have fixed it in Canada, 
or that there is a terrific model to copy anywhere.  There is not much 
likelihood of protecting testimony in the event of a subpoena in many 
jurisdictions, and we should let participants in this process be well 
aware of that.  All kinds of sensitive information can come out during 
an investigation, such as previous allegations or criminal charges, a 
history of a complainant making many complaints, previous sexual assault 
to the victim or other traumatic stress, sexual preferences, medical 
history including mental illness etc etc.  A privacy policy at ICANN 
would have a section devoted to this policy, making it clear what 
reasonable guarantees of confidentiality we could offer (or not).  Those 
guarantees ought to be minimal in my view, unless a lawyer specializing 
in HR law assures me otherwise. I am, as I have often said, not a 
lawyer, but I have worked in the area of privacy law from practically 
every angle for many years.  Anyone who has worked in this area, in my 
experience at least, has seen reputations and careers destroyed by both 
abuse, and false allegations. We must set up a system that is fair and 
does not re-victimize the victim, or penalize witnesses for doing the 
right thing and coming forward.

3.  I had suggested looking at the reference materials that I am most 
familiar with, the Canadian government ones, but this was dismissed as 
not relevant.  Definitions and procedures in my view are very relevant, 
as it is in the implementation of harassment policies that great care 
must be taken.  These tools are available here:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/healthy-sain/prh/index-eng.asp. (also 
available in french)

It is true that ICANN is not a government organization.  Most harassment 
policies are developed in the employment context, so the closest model 
which we could find, in the subsequent discussion by NCSG members,  was 
the recent conference policy implemented by the IETF, (thanks to Avri 
Doria for the suggestion) well worth examining and following closely.  
We as a group of people participating at ICANN hardly fit the mold of a 
California corporation, either, in my opinion, so we should proceed 
carefully and figure out the implementation in such a way that this new 
tool, designed to make us all more comfortable and able to participate 
without discrimination and abuse, is not used against us, to stifle 
dissent.  As proponents of free speech, accountability, human rights, an 
open Internet, and privacy for registrant data among other things, we 
are often the voice of dissent.  Just a note of caution. In my view the 
draft policy that Ed has described was too wide in scope, and might 
easily be used against those who disagree and raise important issues.  I 
have participated on quite a few working groups now in my 3.5 years at 
ICANN.  The atmosphere can be quite contentious, it is not for the faint 
of heart, and some of our best spokespeople can be quite aggressive when 
they need to be.  We are not going to change that atmosphere overnight, 
in my view, so we must be prepared to approach the matter of improving 
behaviour step by step.  I think only a small portion of that atmosphere 
amounts to gender bias, although I do agree that it appears to exist.  
However, I am older than most, so it could be age bias, and I am a very 
aggressive proponent of privacy rights and following proper criminal 
procedure for law enforcement, so I could easily have my contributions 
ignored for those reasons, not gender bias. :-)

4.  One of the issues that we have to think about very carefully, is 
what penalties should be imposed on offenders.  In my view ICANN has a 
virtual monopoly on the management of DNS policy.  Banning individuals 
from meetings or participation might be challenged as anti-competitive 
or discriminatory behaviour; obviously there is a gradient here but we 
must be mindful that unlike firing someone from a job (where they might 
go and work for another company the next day) getting fired from ICANN 
means not being able to participate in the discussion of DNS policy and 
procedures. Given that we are all volunteers even if working for 
organizations, and are not "members" of ICANN, there are not many other 
sanctions available, short of fines or community service.  Worth 
thinking about in my opinion.

5.  In closing I would like to remind NCSG folks that the Ombudsman 
comes to every meeting, and his door is open.  He will hear complaints, 
and until such time as the current draft acceptable behaviour policy is 
accepted, and the proposed expert is hired to figure out how to 
implement this better, we can continue to use his office.  Since most of 
the harassment issues that I have heard about fall well short of 
criminal behaviour, it might be wise to start there.  I have taken the 
liberty of putting him in cc, for the benefit of those attending the 
conference who might wish to use the official channels we have at the 
moment.  Most folks attending the meeting are already starting to head 
to the airport.  The current acceptable behaviour standards can be found 
here:

https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann-standards_of_behavior-jul14.pdf

These standards have been much criticized recently, but they can capture 
most inappropriate conduct in my view, while we develop a more fulsome 
policy and training materials.

Please let us try to work together constructively, and consult one 
another thoroughly so that we are not blindsided on these very important 
issues. Thanks to all those who have commented on this important issue!  
As you may have guessed, I strongly support Robin's and Milton's remarks 
below.

Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-06-24 14:50, Robin Gross wrote:
> While this lone effort to save the women may have been 
> well-intentioned, I am also concerned that it will end up being 
> counter productive.  Let’s not become defensive about concerns, but 
> rather address them in more of a dialogue among the impacted parties. 
>  Of course none of us are in favor of harassment, but I also don’t 
> think we need to go off on a one man campaign.  Let’s try to work 
> productively together with guidance from the impacted parties leading 
> the effort on what changes are needed and how best to handle 
> situations when they arise.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>> On Jun 24, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Tatiana Tropina 
>> <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com <mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I fully support Milton's email. Demanding strong action has to come 
>> together with strong and thorough safeguards. I don't want to be in 
>> the atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Vague definitions, unclear 
>> rules and off the cuff solutions are as dangerous as the problem itself.
>> Best
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On 24 Jun 2016 18:15, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net 
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     Milton,
>>     I'm not going to get involved in juvenile name calling and
>>     personal attacks. All quotes in may post are accurate and taken
>>     from the Council list. As for your accusation of "grandstanding"
>>     and chest beating...
>>     I've spent hours on the telephone with officials
>>     and organisations in Finland. I have learned law, procedure and
>>     established personal contacts that will enable me to help those
>>     who feel harmed and aggrieved. If you want to call
>>     that grandstanding go ahead. I call it getting off my rear end
>>     and solving a problem I see and have experienced.
>>     We are not going to have as strong an NCSG team in Helsinki that
>>     we would otherwise have had because there are women who will no
>>     longer come to these meetings. That bothers me. I'm told the tech
>>     community is always sexist, as if that is an excuse. Well, you've
>>     been here for years Milton and talking to women who have been
>>     here a long time as well they tell me there have always been
>>     problems of this nature. I have no way of knowing whether they
>>     are telling me the truth or not.
>>     What I do know is what I've experienced: the most paternalistic
>>     sexist environment I have encountered anywhere in my professional
>>     life. I look forward to working with you and others to create
>>     policy to fix this. It should have been done years ago by those
>>     who have been there all these years.
>>     In the interim, I asm going to ensure that those who
>>     feel aggrieved are able to access the resources that our host
>>     countries have established to assist them. One of the advantage
>>     predators have is the victims at meetings like ICANN are often in
>>     a foreign country and don't know where to turn. It's a real
>>     problem, one I've witnessed first hand at ICANN meetings in
>>     Singapore and Morocco. I'm doing everything I can to take away
>>     this predator advantage and ensure that ALL conference attendees
>>     have access to the resources set up to help them by the state and
>>     civil society in the Republic of Finland. Each attendee
>>     is deserved to feel safe in his or her body and to be treated
>>     respectfully and professionally.
>>     I'm sorry you don't seem to approve of my actions, Milton. Not
>>     much I can do about that. I've seen too many tears and heard too
>>     many stories. If I can help one person while ICANN is getting
>>     it's act together  it will be worth the condemnation of the masses.
>>     Respectfully,
>>     Ed Morris
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     *From*: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at GATECH.EDU
>>     <mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>>
>>     *Sent*: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:56 PM
>>     *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>     <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>     *Subject*: Re: Harassment and Helsinki
>>
>>     Ed
>>
>>
>>     one of your Councilors who stated “it is my view that we need a
>>     privacy policy more than a harassment policy “. I could not
>>     disagree more strongly with that statement.
>>
>>
>>     MM: That does not strike me as an accurate statement. My
>>     understanding is that there were concerns about how personal
>>     information about accusations is handled. According to an
>>     approved NCUC statement, we need to be as concerned about the
>>     rights of the falsely accused as we are about the victim of SH,
>>     because of course we all know, or should know, that the
>>     boundaries are not always clear and that people can manipulate or
>>     misuse SH charges just as SH abusers can manipulate others in a
>>     conference setting.
>>
>>
>>     MM: I’d like to hear more about those details, and less about how
>>     strongly you are against SH, Ed. Last time I looked there were no
>>     defenders or SH on this list. We need to work together on this
>>     issue and not grandstand – one of the most poisonous things about
>>     these kinds of issues is that it allows people to beat their
>>     chests and proclaim how much they are against “bad things”
>>     (sexual harassment, terrorism, child porn, you name it) while
>>     obscuring the details about what rights people have and what
>>     procedures are justified in response.
>>
>>
>>     (I am reminded of the Republican primary debates, where the
>>     candidates vied with each other to say how much they were against
>>     ISIS, and how “strong” should be the measures we take against it,
>>     but seem to have overlooked any realistic cause-effect
>>     relationship between the actions proposed and the factors that
>>     have given rise to ISIS in the region – including the Iraq war
>>     they all supported. But I digress…)
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160624/4275a061/attachment.htm>