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]] On Behalf Of
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:29 PM
>>> To: [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]) 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
|
