ICANN’s response to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former long-serving employee was “inadequate” and failed to address “pervasive and obvious problems” women experience in the community, some veteran community members have said.
In a letter to chair Tripti Sinha, 15 people, not exclusively female, also say that previous responses to reports of harassment have focused more on protecting ICANN’s reputation rather than protecting the affected party.
Tanzanica King, a former senior member of ICANN’s meetings team and the Org’s second-longest-serving employee, sued ICANN in August, complaining about specific instances of harassment and a broader “frat boy culture”.
In response, ICANN said many of King’s claims were “untrue”, saying it “strives to create a positive, safe, and inclusive work and community environment” and has “a zero-tolerance policy toward harassment”.
Sinha later announced a forthcoming “strengthening” of the Org’s anti-harassment policy and named its new Ombuds as Liz Field, a woman with experience overseeing anti-harassment policies in governmental and quasi-governmental settings.
Now, the 15 veteran community members, drawn from contracted and non-contracted parties but all writing in their personal capacity, have called ICANN’s initial response “profoundly disappointing”. They wrote (pdf).
It is time to acknowledge that ICANN Org and the Community must make the necessary changes to create a welcoming and professional Community and to protect and defend both Org staff and Community members against harassment and sexual abuse. Denial of this issue has gone on for too long, protecting ICANN’s reputation rather than protecting victims.
The September 24 letter goes on to specifically criticize the Office of the Ombuds, until about a year ago led exclusively by men and then on an interim basis by a woman who was also an Org staffer, for not having the power or willingness to act on harassment reports. They wrote:
An ombuds must have independence and the ability to act; ICANN’s Office of the Ombuds has neither. Typically when harassment has been raised with the Ombuds, the Office did not have the ability to protect the reporter and the impacted person. The Office has illustrated over and over that their function is to protect ICANN Org’s interests—reputation, financial interest, or damage to organizational integrity.
Sinha has since responded (pdf), saying the ICANN board takes the issue “very seriously” and asking permission to publish the letter as “a positive way to encourage dialogue”.
She added that the new Ombuds reports directly to the board and that she “is fully empowered to act as an independent, impartial dispute resolution provider, with autonomy and authority.”
ICANN has not retracted its statement in response to the King lawsuit as the letter-writers requested.