[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency

Tue Mar 22 19:38:30 EET 2016

Hi Amr, GNSO councillors supported drafting a letter about the need for a
policy to be put in place. We mentioned that commenting on good practices
of policies in the private sector could be useful. Of course, I think the
GNSO will make a final decision about sending it after seeing the letter. I
may be wrong, but I think the letter would be sent to the board.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Stephanie on this, but have a question. Have we actually
> already decided that we are sending a letter? Who are we sending it to?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> > 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>
> 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>
> 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
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160322/982b572e/attachment-0001.html>