I prefer the one with a background. Starting with following ...

On 2 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m., "Michael Oghia" <[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]>
> wrote:
>
>> Certainly better. I support too.
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2016 8:54 a.m., "Tatiana Tropina" <[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]>
>>> 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]] 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
>>>>
>>>
>