Hi Tatiana,
The board has mentioned (in the last NCSG-Board session) that they
wanted to take steps, and so did individual board members in the CCWP HR
session.
I would like to ensure that we're fully aware of all the processes that
are taking place, to ensure that there is no duplication of efforts and
we can make progress in full transparency.
Best,
Niels
On 11/01/2016 06:17 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> I am sorry for intervening on the late stage of this discussion, but why
> are we asking the board about human rights at all, when there is a WS2
> that has to provide a framework of interpretation for the HR core value?
> Am I missing something? Some of the board members are taking part in
> this process, but it's a community process.
> I don't understand the purpose of this question.
> Cheers
> Tanya
>
> On 1 November 2016 at 13:15, Niels ten Oever
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
> Did you read my email? I gave two suggestions and explained you why I
> thought the first covered the latter as well.
>
> Let's be constructive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
> On 11/01/2016 05:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > I think Niels is seriously misguided to think that we should not be
> > asking Icann about the HR impact of its policies. I - and I think a
> > lot of others in this constituency - will Oppose asking that question
> > at all if it is limited to ICANN' "organization". I mean what a waste
> > of our time. Icann's main mission is to make policies - that's where
> > the human rights implications are most salient.
> >
> > Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute
> > of Technology
> >
> >> On Nov 1, 2016, at 17:11, Niels ten Oever
> >> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Milton,
> >>
> >> You chapnged the scope of question 4 and there is also still a typo
> >> in it.
> >>
> >> The typo is one 'is' too many, it should be fixed like this:
> >>
> >>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human
> >>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization?
> >>
> >> Also changing the scope from organization to policies is not one I
> >> agree with. Am happy to elaborate in Hyderabad why that is the
> >> case.
> >>
> >> In short: policies would also fall under 'organization', but not
> >> vice versa. If you're adamanent about this, we could also do:
> >>
> >>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human
> >>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization and/or its
> >>> policies?
> >>
> >> But I think that's worse.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Niels
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 11/01/2016 10:35 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Hi Milton,
> >>>
> >>> Agreed, I was in too much of a hurry, your suggestions for 3 & 4
> >>> are better.
> >>>
> >>> I also tend to agree with Dave that "ICANN legal" is better than
> >>> "ICANN lawyer", makes it look less like a personal attack.
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:37:32AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L
> >>>> ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Tapani, You did a great job of phrasing the first question,
> >>>> which is a highly sensitive one, taking lots of input and
> >>>> forming it into a coherent question that meets all our
> >>>> concerns. 2nd one works well, too.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 3rd and 4th questions on the other hand seem to be a bit
> >>>> confusing. Can you agree to rephrase them as follows?
> >>>>
> >>>>> 3. In the Whois Complaint process, anonymous people can make
> >>>>> complaints that he data is inaccurate and in some cases cause
> >>>>> trouble for innocent registrants. Why doesn't ICANN ever
> >>>>> investigate whether these allegations are intended to harass
> >>>>> or intimidate registrants or are made for anti- competitive
> >>>>> reasons?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board is making to implement a
> >>>>> Human Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN policies?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
> >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Tapani
> >>>>> Tarvainen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:30 AM To:
> >>>>> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Topics for meeting
> >>>>> with the board in Hyderabad?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> <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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Tapani Tarvainen
> >>
> >> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
> >>
> >> Article 19 www.article19.org <http://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 <http://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
|
