Thanks Michael, looks good to me!
Cheers,
Niels
On 11/02/2016 05:07 PM, Michael Oghia wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> No problem, and you're right -- I didn't mean to change the meaning.
> Here is the updated version you wrote with the more accurate language of
> what you meant (I changed the spelling of Marrakech and capitalized
> Board in both places to be consistent):
>
> *4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at
> the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what
> steps the Board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to
> the ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and
> what activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's
> policy processes as well as ICANN the organization?
> *
>
> Look ok to you and everyone?
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Niels ten Oever
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thanks for your clean up of the language. Unfortunately this changed the
> meaning of the question. What I suggested was:
>
> 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at the
> Marakesh meeting, we would be very interested to hear what steps the
> board is making in relation human rights in addition to the
> accountability processes. We would like to understand what efforts have
> been made and whether you could update us on planed activities
> concerning human rights and ICANN's policy processes as well as ICANN
> the organization?
>
> The change you are making in relation to accountability process and the
> difference between ICANN policies and the organization is a bit
> problematic, but I think you did not intended this, so taking all the
> other good parts from your suggestions it would be:
>
> 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at the
> Marakesh meeting (ICANN55) , we are very interested to hear what steps
> the board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to the
> ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and what
> activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's policy
> processes as well as ICANN the organization?
>
> I hope we can go ahead with this.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
>
>
>
> On 11/02/2016 04:33 PM, Michael Oghia wrote:
> > Thank you Farzaneh and Monika for your feedback. For the record, I also
> > prefer the longer question with context. To recap, this is the question
> > as it stands (as originally proposed by Niels and edited by me):
> >
> > 4. Following-up on the discussion between the NCSG and the board at
> > the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what
> > steps the board is taking in relation to human rights as well as
> > the accountability processes. What efforts have been made regarding the
> > planned activities concerning human rights and ICANN's policy processes
> > as well as at the organizational level?
> >
> > Is everyone ok with this?
> >
> > Best,
> > -Michael
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >
> > I also would like to support the longer version of the question, as
> > proposed by Niels.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Monika
> >
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> >
> >
> > Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I
> > law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au>
> <http://law.unimelb.edu.au> I
> >
> > Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> > cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu> <http://cmds.ceu.edu> I
> >
> > Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I
> > icann.org <http://icann.org> <http://icann.org> I
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> on behalf of farzaneh badii
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 2, 2016 9:00 AM
> >
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > *Subject:* Re: Topics for meeting with the board in Hyderabad?
> >
> >
> > I prefer the one with a background. Starting with following ...
> >
> >
> > On 2 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m., "Michael Oghia" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >
> > Matthew and Farzi, do you prefer the first, shorter one, or the
> > second, longer one?
> >
> > -Michael
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:44 AM, farzaneh badii
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Certainly better. I support too.
> >
> >
> > On 2 Nov 2016 8:54 a.m., "Tatiana Tropina"
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Niels and all,
> > Now the question looks much clearer to me. Also
> > addresses fully the questions I asked earlier. I support
> > the new wording.
> > Cheers
> > Tanya
> >
> >
> > On 2 Nov 2016 08:46, "Niels ten Oever"
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > To reconcile the issue Milton has this might
> be most
> > appropriate:
> >
> > 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to
> implement
> > a Human
> > Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN's policies
> and the
> > organization?
> >
> > I realized though we might need a bit more
> > background to this questions.
> > I would like to offer this:
> >
> > 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG
> > and the Board at the
> > Marakesh meeting, we would be very interested to
> > hear what steps the
> > board is making in relation human rights in
> addition
> > to the
> > accountability processes. We would like to
> > understand what efforts have
> > been made and whether you could update us on
> planed
> > activities
> > concerning human rights and ICANN's policy
> processes
> > as well as ICANN
> > the organization?
> >
> > Looking forward to discuss!
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/02/2016 09:56 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> > > Dear Milton,
> > >
> > > You not agreeing on a question doesn't mean we
> > don't have consensus. It
> > > just means you're trying to block it.
> > >
> > > I also have given you two options to accommodate
> > your concerns on which
> > > you did not reply, nor did you provide
> > argumentation for your issues. So
> > > this response from you does not seem fair to me.
> > >
> > > For you reference, the two alternatives I
> provided
> > to accommodate your
> > > concerns:
> > >
> > > 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to
> > implement a Human
> > > Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the
> organization?
> > >
> > > 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to
> > implement a Human
> > > Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the
> organization
> > and/or its
> > > policies?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/02/2016 08:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > >> Tapani
> > >> Sorry, but you need to take this process a lot
> > more seriously.
> > >> These interactions with the board are very
> > important. You were given the question suggestions
> > some time ago. Then we got one day to come to
> > consensus on them. When there was no immediate
> > consensus (predictably) you unilaterally declared
> > that there was no time to fix them; now you say
> > there is.
> > >>
> > >> Based on the latest comments, I would suggest
> > that we drop Question 3 (about Human rights).
> > >> There isn't a consensus on it and it
> doesn't seem
> > to be the kind of thing the board will decide,
> > rather it will be worked out on WS2. Once WS2 is
> > further along and the board is set to make a
> > decision we can frame a question then.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: NCSG-Discuss
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of
> > >>> Tapani Tarvainen
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:29 PM
> > >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > >>> Subject: Re: Topics for meeting with the board
> > in Hyderabad?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Niels,
> > >>>
> > >>> I thought the changes over what I posted
> > yesterday (discussed here today,
> > >>> from Dave and Milton) were rather trivial, but
> > perhaps I was wrong. In any
> > >>> case they haven't been sent yet, and I guess it
> > doesn't really matter if it takes
> > >>> one more day. I'm just about to board my next
> > flight so I can't do much about
> > >>> it before reaching India, but feel free to
> > debate details until then.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tapani
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Nov 01 18:46, Niels ten Oever
> > ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>)
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Dear Tapani,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Could you let us know which version of the
> > questions you sent?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there were last minute changes, whereas we
> > have discussed this
> > >>>> already for quite a while, I think that would
> > be a bit of a process issue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Niels
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/01/2016 06:37 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > >>>>> All,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm sorry, no more time for changes, it's past
> > deadline and I'm off
> > >>>>> to airport in half an hour so I asked Maryam
> > to send it, hopefully
> > >>>>> without too many typos left (I asked her to
> > fix any obvious ones).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Apologies for leaving this so late,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Niels ten Oever
> > >>>> Head of Digital
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Article 19
> > >>>> www.article19.org
> <http://www.article19.org> <http://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 <http://www.article19.org>
> <http://www.article19.org>
> >
> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> > distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action
> > in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
> > the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission
> > of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please
> > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> __ __
> >
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org <http://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
|
