Tapani:
Assume you sent this before you had seen Kathy's suggestion? Here it is:

KK: "As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the New gTLD Agreements without review or check (source: Alan Grogan in Hyderabad). Some of these PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO policy processes and consensus policies. What can we do to mitigate the problems of these PICs? Does the "New ICANN' no longer value consensus processes (and the many hours of volunteer effort, time, research, drafting, editing and reviewing spent creating it)?"

I would rephrase part of it as follows:

KK+MM: "As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the New gTLD Agreements. Some of these PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO policy processes and consensus policies. How can we ensure that PICs do not move ICANN policy outside of its narrow mission and does not override or ignore consensus processes (and the many hours of volunteer effort, time, research, drafting, editing and reviewing spent creating it)?"





> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 2:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
> 
> Hi Milton, Kathy,
> 
> Would you be able to suggest exact phrasing to use?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:35:42PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L
> ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
> > I STRONGLY support asking this.
> >
> > I would avoid mentioning specific contracted parties, however - unless they
> force you to by asking for a specific example. Raising a specific example con
> get you involved in specific policy issues on the merits, rather than dealing
> with what is the real crux of the question, which is how PICs can be used to
> contradict or set aside the GNSO policy process and consensus policies. Stay
> focused on the principle, don't get into a IGO names debate or a copyright
> debate.
> >
> > Great suggestion, Kathy
> >
> > --MM
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Kathy Kleiman
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:59 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
> > >
> > > Tapani,
> > >
> > > I think we should also consider asking the Board about the PICs
> > > (Public Interest Commitments) submitted by the New gTLD Registries.
> > > In some important cases, these PICs contradict, set aside and even
> > > bypass Consensus policy a) made or b) currently being made. So Minds
> > > + Machines, for example, is blocking all IGO names at the second
> > > level of its New gTLDs -- although there is a full-blown GNSO Policy
> > > Development Process WG looking at that very issue!
> > >
> > > I think we should be asking the Board about these PICs and raising
> concerns.
> > >
> > > Best, Kathy