[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency
William Drake
wjdrake
Tue Mar 22 19:42:55 EET 2016
I too agree with Stephanie, Tatiana, Jeanette and others who have elsewhere raised concerns that appear to be outsides the bounds of acceptable large-n discourse.
Bill
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Mar 2016, at 18:37, 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
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list