[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think bashing the org and the Ombuddy should stop.  I think we should 
distance ourselves from that bashing.  I do not approve of breaking the 
rules of the process, notably the duty of confidentiality, for the 
purpose of making a splash in the public forum.
These are totally separate from the issues of needing a policy. Sure we 
need a policy.  We also need a privacy policy (which would have been 
abbrogated in this instance).
My 2 cents.
Cheers SP

On 2016-03-22 8:29, William Drake 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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160322/cf964111/attachment-0001.html>