[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency

Tue Mar 22 18:39:11 EET 2016

I agree with Ed. Sounds like a good approach to me.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> I should note that the issue was raised at the public GNSO Council meeting
> and a group of 5 Councillors, including 4 from the NCSG, were charged with
> writing a letter to ICANN corporate requesting enactment of a conference
> sexual harassment policy, amongst other action items.
> I, along with several others, have spoken with ICANN Legal concerning the
> wider situation and can happily report that once a request is made by the
> community ICANN legal is happy to help with the drafting and enactment of
> such a policy.
>
> Concerning Kathy's post, I can confirm the accuracy of all of it.
>
> I would suggest that whilst being supportive of our member our NCSG
> institutional response needs to focus on ensuring that the complaintant
> receives fair consideration of any complaint she may wish to bring, without
> any judgement as to the substance of said complaint, while focusing
> substantively on correcting any deficiency in handling such situations
> currently found in ICANN policy.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Mar 2016, at 07:33, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
*Mar?lia 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
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160322/68090b42/attachment-0001.html>