ICANN Stakeholders Urge Clarification of Proposed Anti-Harassment Policy

The draft anti-harassment plan requires ICANN participants to “refrain from harassment of any type,” including “sexually suggestive touching,” repeat violations of someone’s “personal space” and “lewd or graphic comments or jokes of a sexual nature.” Examples of harassment also include “circulating or posting written or graphic materials that show hostility or disrespect toward or that demean individuals” based on their “age, ancestry, color, physical or mental disability, genetic information, medical condition (cancer and genetic characteristics), marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, gender, gender identity and gender expression), sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status,” ICANN said.

Individuals can report instances of harassment to the ICANN ombudsperson or choose to resolve the issue directly with the person responsible, the organization said. The ombudsperson “will consider the credibility of each party in making a determination,” and “no ‘corroboration’ is required to support a finding,” the organization said. Punishment for harassment can include barring someone from participating in ICANN processes or requiring a written apology or some other action before the person can continue participation, said the nonprofit.

Stakeholders urged ICANN to clarify how it defines harassment in the document. “Without further guidance or better language, the Policy may actually restrict participation and community-building by fear,” the Generic Names Supporting Organization’s IP Constituency (IPC) commented. ICANN should in part clarify that a behavior “must be ‘unwelcome’” to be considered harassment, the IPC said. GNSO’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) also urged that “consensual activities should not be covered by this policy.” It’s important “to include the notion of affirmative consent on which to base the understanding of what constitutes harassment in general, and sexual harassment in particular,” NCSG said. Absent language requiring consent, the list of behaviors “generalises and wrongly defines normal conduct and actions as harassment,” the Registries Stakeholder Group said.

GNSO’s Business Constituency (BC) cautioned that “in a diverse global community such as ICANN, a statement or gesture may cause unintended offense due to cultural differences. Clearly unintended offense could be addressed by an admonition, warning, or call for apology. But intent should be established before more serious sanctions are justified.” Proper “training and experience of the [ombudsperson] as well as providing multiple Ombuds who represent the diversity of the community may also help bridge cultural, gender and other differences,” the IPC said.

The At-Large Advisory Committee said it’s concerned about how the anti-harassment blueprint would affect “freedom of expression when it comes to commenting on ICANN leaders, for example, via social media. In many cultures and societies, satire and parodies of political and business leaders are common and acceptable social practice. Will jokes about ICANN leaders via social media, for example, be regarded as a form of harassment?” Name-calling, for instance, “is a hard to translate English expression that is ambiguous and might be misinterpreted,” ALAC said.

The Internet Infrastructure (i2) Coalition said it believes the proposed policy “may create a situation where the ‘cure is worse than the disease.’” The draft “is not focused enough on encouraging ICANN participants to treat everyone respectfully and with intercultural sensitivity,” the coalition said. “ICANN participants come from a large number of diverse cultures, yet the policy reads as-if it was written by North American males for a standard corporate environment. This kind of corporate approach to the policy will likely not be effective in preventing harassing behaviors from occurring at ICANN meetings.” The current draft "might suit some audiences, but would cause issues for many people from other cultures and I suspect this is not the intention of the policy,” Blacknight CEO Michele Neylon wrote.

The NCSG said it’s “concerned about the fact that the list of inappropriate conduct seems to be focused primarily on sexual harassment. Although very important, we believe the list needs to be rewritten to include harassment in a broader sense, and also include examples of unwanted” behavior. The Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider Constituency (ISPCP) said it believes ICANN should include a mission statement in the document “that highlights the goal of encouraging mutual respect by recognizing the collaboration and cooperation that makes the success of the work of ICANN volunteers and staff possible.” A list of prohibited behaviors “can never be exhaustive,” so the ISPCP said it “endorses the inclusion of such a positive statement to highlight and reinforce this organization’s spirit of respect and collaboration.”

Commenters said the proposal gives the ombudsperson too much responsibility over the process of dealing with harassment complaints. The ombudsperson “would have to act as investigator, judge and jury, without the benefit of evidence or corroboration,” the BC said. An ombudsperson is fundamentally “an impartial mediator that helps resolve disputes,” the i2 Coalition said. “Yet, in the proposed policy, the Ombudsperson is given the duties of an arbitrator, not a mediator.” NCSG said ICANN should create a three-member “anti-harassment team” of trained professionals independent of the ICANN community. “This is to ensure that the processing of claims can happen with a broad understanding of harassment, and to ensure that a potential victim can talk to a team member that they feel comfortable with and can relate to,” NCSG said.

The IPC and others urged ICANN to ensure harassment complaints will be evaluated confidentially. Several also urged ICANN to allow a right of appeal of a harassment complaint investigation’s findings. “This is especially true since exclusion from ICANN activities may have a severely adverse effect on an individual’s ability to perform their job and maintain their professional reputation,” the BC said.