[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Tue Mar 22 19:16:12 EET 2016
Fine. However, I do think that we should also be in favour of due
process. The alleged perpetrator has had his rights abrogated. The
existing process, however flawed, has been abrogated. I don't think we
should ignore that. There are ways of pointing that out without
criticising/failing to support our member. I did not volunteer to draft
that letter, I am not the lawyer here, but I would ask that this point
somehow find its way into the letter. I am very uncomfortable with the
way this whole thing has escalated, and I don't think it reflects well
on our commitment to human rights, due process and basic fairness.
Stephanie P
On 2016-03-22 12:39, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <mailto: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 <http://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/20160322/90b87d7c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list