I agree that Question 1 is quite confrontational. I do not expect we will get a useful response from the board on this in our session (though if they get similar queries from other quarters throughout the week they may take it seriously). I think the most valuable thing we can do about this issue is consult with colleagues in other SGs and ACs and ensure the board is getting similar messages voiced to them. But it is still important for us to raise the issue. I’d also consider rephrasing it so it is ‘ICANN Legal’ rather than ICANNs lawyer, to make it a little less personal - if its seen as a personal attack on someone they like, it makes them more inclined to circle the wagons. 

I’d consider rephrasing question 2 a little so the board can give us an answer that is more practical than judgemental. Perhaps rather than ‘deeply inappropriate’ something like ‘constitute a form of content control via the DNS, and do not belong within the ICANN policy process’ or something? I don’t think the board is going to suddenly make a strong statement against the DNA, but a board commitment to not letting this stuff into a PICDRP or something would be helpful? 

I suspect question #3 might get an answer along the lines of ‘there are a whole lot of WHOIS policy processes going on right now, you should pursue this issue through them’. But we might get something more useful, maybe. 

Cheers

David


> On 31 Oct. 2016, at 7:49 pm, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tapani,
> 
> These questions look great - hitting some important and concerning issues for NCSG and the ICANN Community.
> 
> Per Bill's suggestion, may I suggest we move Question #1 to #3 or #4?  As Bill noted, the Content question (current #2) is one that we are supporting the Board on (Steve Crocker has been great on pushing back against using the DNS for content control). The Whois may be one that we can gather support on too.  Human Rights may be in a similar category.
> 
> Current Question #1 is an adversarial one, as Bill pointed out. He suggested we move it to after the questions on which we are likely to have agreement, such as content.  (To rephrase Bill, can we have our "kumbaya" moments first?)


> 
> Best, Kathy
> 
> 
> On 10/31/2016 9:29 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
>>