[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I agree with Bill. Not sure it is wise for the NCSG (or even the NCUC, but that is not for this committee to weigh in on) to take a strong position on the incident itself without the full facts. My understanding is that these are difficult to get a hold of, since we?ve only heard from one of the parties involved.

I certainly sympathise with Padmini, as I would with anyone in her position, but I?m not sure what constructive purpose is served by the emails sent to multiple lists on Friday. I am also not quite sure that all the points raised and suggestions made on NCSG-DISCUSS yesterday by the Centre for Internet and Society are ones that I can agree with.

I?m all for some sort of policy to handle incidents of sexual harassment at ICANN meetings. I?m surprised that this hasn?t been something that was addressed in the past, but I?ve only become aware of this being a problem since the Dublin meeting. Apparently many have been aware of this being an issue for years now. This needs to stop, and if anything, I?m grateful to Padmini for finally shining a light on the problem. Not only has she brought the community?s attention to the problem, but because of her actions in Marrakech, it is clear that there is no policy or process that is equipped to deal with harassment at ICANN. In the absence of such a process, I?m not sure it is a good idea to ask or demand ICANN do something about this incident.

There does seem (to me at least) to be a community-wide sense of agreement that something needs to be done. If we are to get involved, I suggest we work with the ICANN board, staff and the rest of the community on ways to handle this in the future, and not ?bash? the org for being unprepared now. That would IMHO be a waste of time, and will achieve little to nothing good. Instead, we should be working to create deterrents to this sort of incident taking place in the future, as well as a process to address similar ones if/when they do occur. Once we actually figure out the specifics of what we would like to see come out of this, I suspect that we will not face too much disagreement from ICANN and others.

Just my thoughts on this.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 2:29 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kathy
> 
> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC accountability/transparency.  Just a thought.
> 
> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views about them.  I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and the things she and others have said about it.  Obviously there should be a policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN, are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the org and staff.   So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as the facts right.
> 
> Bill
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>> 
>> private
>> not for redistribution
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the case.
>> 
>> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders -- two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time and place.  Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not reduce it.  That was the advice. 
>> 
>> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two people from the group above independently notified the Board of the sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded appropriately.
>> 
>> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and place. 
>> 
>> private
>> not for redistribution
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg