That's what I heard too, but which version?
Cheers,
Niels
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 03:43:40AM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apparently the Board approved the anti-harrassment policy yesterday.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
> Local Time: 11 March 2017 3:06 PM
> UTC Time: 11 March 2017 15:06
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> On anti-harassment:
>
> Just in case you had not seen it there is a staff summary of the inputs
> dating from late Jan:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-anti-harassment-policy-26jan17-en.pdf
>
>
> On 11/03/2017 14:41, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Maybe we could also ask about the progress via-a-vis the anti-harassment
> > policy, it has been with the board for a while now:
> >
> > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/anti-harassment-policy-2016-11-07-en
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> > On 03/08/2017 12:42 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> >> How about this, Tapani, for the publishable phrasing of our compliance
> >> question?
> >>
> >> In follow-up to our question in Hyderabad, and with our new Compliance
> >> head now assigned, we would like to revisit the concerns we raised in
> >> Hyderabad and see what actions have been taken to mitigate the abuse we
> >> reported. How might ICANN's complaint process be modified to a) create
> >> accountability for the party filing the complaint, b) ensure registrants
> >> are notified and allowed time and due process to respond to allegations
> >> brought to ICANN against their domain names, and c) create protections
> >> for Registrants who might themselves be the target of harassment and abuse?
> >>
> >> And how about this for the "publishable phrasing" of our PICs question?
> >>
> >> 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)?
> >>
> >> Edits welcome!
> >>
> >> Best, Kathy
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> 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!
> >>
> >> On 3/7/2017 9:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>> Sounds like we'll only have one question for the board...
> >>>
> >>> Kathy, can you have publishable phrasing for it today?
> >>>
> >>> Anybody else, if you have other questions to suggest, please
> >>> let us know TODAY. Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 02 10:55, Kathy Kleiman ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tapani,
> >>>>
> >>>> These are questions for the Board/NCSG Meeting, right? I think we
> >>>> should be asking questions about Compliance -- and continue our
> >>>> efforts to seek fairer compliance actions for registrants,
> >>>> compliance actions that fall within the scope of ICANN, and
> >>>> compliance actions responsive to the needs of the whole community
> >>>> (not a subset).
> >>>>
> >>>> This is definitely not the right phrasing yet, but we can certain
> >>>> provide it. I know Ayden and Raoul have been thinking about
> >>>> compliance. Would anyone else like to help craft a question for the
> >>>> board? (Please respond privately.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Best, Kathy
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As time is running short, I'll take the liberty of hijacking
> >>>>> Farzaneh's message from NCUC list - thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, questions below for all NCSG members. The deadline is rather
> >>>>> impossible, but I don't expect sky to fall if we extend it by
> >>>>> the weekend. Nonetheless quick comments would be appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM -0500, farzaneh badii
> >>>>> ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> NCUC members,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Board has requested to answer the below questions for its meeting
> >>>>>> with the
> >>>>>> stakeholder groups ( I think NCSG):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. To what degree is your membership actively participating in
> >>>>>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2? What could the Board or ICANN
> >>>>>> organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion
> >>>>>> of this
> >>>>>> work?
> >>>>>> 2. What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They also want to know what we want to ask them during NCSG/Board
> >>>>>> meeting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This meeting will take place at the NCSG level but I took the
> >>>>>> liberty to
> >>>>>> ask you and trigger the discussion. If discussions take place on
> >>>>>> NCSG about
> >>>>>> these questions and our questions to the Board, then we shall
> >>>>>> transfer our
> >>>>>> input to that thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Board has generously given us a deadline of 3 March for submitting our
> >>>>>> questions!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Farzaneh
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488
643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
|
