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
|
