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
>>
>
|
