Milton,

Did you read my email? I gave two suggestions and explained you why I
thought the first covered the latter as well.

Let's be constructive.

Cheers,

Niels

On 11/01/2016 05:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> I think Niels is seriously misguided to think that we should not be
> asking Icann about the HR impact of its policies. I - and I think a
> lot of others in this constituency - will Oppose asking that question
> at all if it is limited to ICANN' "organization". I mean what a waste
> of our time. Icann's main mission is to make policies - that's where
> the human rights implications are most salient.
> 
> Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute
> of Technology
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 17:11, Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Milton,
>> 
>> You chapnged the scope of question 4 and there is also still a typo
>> in it.
>> 
>> The typo is one 'is' too many, it should be fixed like this:
>> 
>>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human 
>>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization?
>> 
>> Also changing the scope from organization to policies is not one I
>> agree with. Am happy to elaborate in Hyderabad why that is the
>> case.
>> 
>> In short: policies would also fall under 'organization', but not
>> vice versa. If you're adamanent about this, we could also do:
>> 
>>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human 
>>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization and/or its 
>>> policies?
>> 
>> But I think that's worse.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11/01/2016 10:35 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Hi Milton,
>>> 
>>> Agreed, I was in too much of a hurry, your suggestions for 3 & 4
>>> are better.
>>> 
>>> I also tend to agree with Dave that "ICANN legal" is better than 
>>> "ICANN lawyer", makes it look less like a personal attack.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:37:32AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L
>>>> ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani, You did a great job of phrasing the first question,
>>>> which is a highly sensitive one, taking lots of input and
>>>> forming it into a coherent question that meets all our
>>>> concerns. 2nd one works well, too.
>>>> 
>>>> The 3rd and 4th questions on the other hand seem to be a bit
>>>> confusing. Can you agree to rephrase them as follows?
>>>> 
>>>>> 3. In the Whois Complaint process, anonymous people can make
>>>>> complaints that he data is inaccurate and in some cases cause
>>>>> trouble for innocent registrants. Why doesn't ICANN ever
>>>>> investigate whether these allegations are intended to harass
>>>>> or intimidate registrants or are made for anti- competitive
>>>>> reasons?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board is making to implement a
>>>>> Human Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN policies?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tapani
>>>>> Tarvainen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:30 AM To:
>>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Topics for meeting
>>>>> with the board in Hyderabad?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Collecting and combining topics here's what I came up to ask
>>>>> the board. Way past deadline, have to send it today, if
>>>>> anybody spots glaring errors please let me know ASAP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. How does the Board expect the the new complaint system to
>>>>> work when it puts ICANN's lawyer, whose job is to protect the
>>>>> corporation from complainers whether they are right or wrong,
>>>>> in charge of managing complaints? Has the Board considered
>>>>> how it affects the independence of the Ombudsman? As an
>>>>> example of our concerns, why there were no repercussions for
>>>>> the abuses of TLD evaluation procedures in the Dot Registry 
>>>>> case?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's
>>>>> position of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not police content, 
>>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police
>>>>>
>>>>> 
(published by Alan Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract Compliance Officer)?
>>>>> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the
>>>>> MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain
>>>>> Name System?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. The Whois Complaint process and why anonymous people can
>>>>> ask for personal information about registrants. Why ICANN
>>>>> never investigates whether these allegations are intended to
>>>>> harass, intimidate or for anti- competitive reasons?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. What steps the ICANN board is making and when to implement
>>>>> a Human Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Tapani Tarvainen
>> 
>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>> 
>> Article 19 www.article19.org
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D
>> 68E9

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9