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

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9