[NCSG-EC] Follow up discussion on list standards of behaviour

Sun Nov 10 00:05:26 EET 2019

Hi Steph

At this point any statement of any rules may by implication be related to
someone or a specific situation. I don't think we should let that come in
the way of stating said rules for the benefit or everyone. I think it could
be productive to include a statement to that effect, so to make your/our
intentions clear: if there is criticism to be expressed, it will be done in
private with the concerned persons, not on the list.

Also, I'm personally more inclined to give additional leeway to non-native
English speakers who may not be fully aware of the tone or implications or
certain words, formulations, and even small stuff like punctuation, etc.
The point is not to scare people from engaging on the list either.

And yes for "indirect" attacks too. This is what I meant in my list, but
feel free to pitch in to make it more clear.

By Bruna's meeting do you mean the NCUC-At Large? In any case, I think any
intervention has to be coordinated with Bruna *and* would be better done in
private. Please don't take this is a challenge to your leadership! I
understand your are appalled, and share your feelings. There are many
things to be appalled about at the moment... But as you said you are on
thin ice. NCSG is. I sincerely think you can achieve your discipline
objectives in private - your sanction power remains the same whether you
make it a public thing or not. And if you feel that your legitimacy is too
low, make it an NCSG EC thing. I think it's a better idea to keep all
grievances - including yours and ours - off the list. You are right it
would not be slander, but it can be interpreted exactly as what we do not
want on the list, that is implications (albeit indirect) of
unethical/"against the Charter" behaviour.

Please do share your text, I'll be glad to provide comments and edits as
the case may be.

Have a nice evening,

On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 3:59 PM Stephanie Perrin via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> It is a good list Raphael, but as I said in the meeting, it is going to be
> so hard to keep people from immediately saying that including this item is
> intended to criticize them. However, I think we are okay to go with this.
>
> I am going to send a cheery good news wrap up of the ICANN 66, which I
> will vet to you guys.  I am going to comment on the meeting, that it was
> rather raucous and difficult for me to chair.  There was widespread reject
> of the concept of an ethics code, with the group favouring a list of issues
> insteand.  REcent disagreements surfaced at the meeting and the EC has
> decided that it might be fruitful, in order to make the meetings and the
> discussion list a more positive place to exchange views, to describe the
> kind of discourse that we think is unacceptable, and that the Chair will be
> empowered to act in future.
>
> Then we fill out your list.  I will draft all this up.  Somehow we have to
> indicate that this covers named ad-hominem attacks, as well as those where
> innuendo might be logically inferred, regarding a particular individual.
> Ok?
>
> I still think I have the right to point out that only one EC member showed
> up for Bruna's meeting and that is unacceptable, without those members
> indicating they were slandered. The Chair is on thin ice here, I hope I
> have your support.
>
> cheers Steph
> On 2019-11-09 14:10, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> So here is what I could come up with.
>
> As you have said Steph, I think at this point we need you to take a more
> active role in policing. It's sad, it feels child-like, but I think it is
> the unfortunate reality. I'm sure you aspire to do more interesting things
> as a chair, but at the same time only the chair has the legitimacy to put
> in place this kind of enforcement actions, I believe.
>
> So would be unacceptable:
>
> -Threats of taking certain matters to the ICANN ombudsman or some other
> authority;
>
> -Statements or implications which may be understood as reflecting
> negatively on someone's honor, character, ethics or morality.
>
> -- *Including* accusations that someone is engaging in violations of
> various laws, charters, bylaws, procedures, etc.
>
> I think the last one is useful to illustrate the necessity of context in
> evaluating behaviour in light of those standards. A point of procedure, or
> an honest question about the charter, can be raised without framing it as
> an accusation. Conversely, it is easy to weaponize that into an accusation.
>
> Also, this does not change anything in the right of ICANN community
> members to take any matter they wish to the Ombudsman or report any form of
> unacceptable behaviour to them, and to any relevant community leaders.
>
> Sanction: withdraw posting privilege from list and involve ombudsman. I'm
> not quite sure of modalities, like how long and at what point to involve
> the ombudsman.
>
> Anyhow let me know what you think.
>
> And safe travels back home or anywhere else you may be going!
>
> Have a nice day,
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20191109/31e61d8a/attachment.htm>