I agree with you Milton. The problem is in my view that it was announced 
as a “fait accompli” of the CEO, and not based on an official Board 
Decision to the best of my knowledge. So: what are the chances that with 
this draft question the Board will just say this is within the CEO´s 
executive remit, next Question please??? It sadly happens often with our 
questions….

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 1 Nov 2016, at 17:25, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> I think the question about ICANN legal is the most important and if 
> not asked first it should be asked second.
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>> On Oct 31, 2016, at 21:34, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>