Dear Michael,
Thanks for your clean up of the language. Unfortunately this changed the
meaning of the question. What I suggested was:
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?
The change you are making in relation to accountability process and the
difference between ICANN policies and the organization is a bit
problematic, but I think you did not intended this, so taking all the
other good parts from your suggestions it would be:
4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at the
Marakesh meeting (ICANN55) , we are very interested to hear what steps
the board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to the
ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and what
activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's policy
processes as well as ICANN the organization?
I hope we can go ahead with this.
Best,
Niels
On 11/02/2016 04:33 PM, Michael Oghia wrote:
> Thank you Farzaneh and Monika for your feedback. For the record, I also
> prefer the longer question with context. To recap, this is the question
> as it stands (as originally proposed by Niels and edited by me):
>
> 4. Following-up on the discussion between the NCSG and the board at
> the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what
> steps the board is taking in relation to human rights as well as
> the accountability processes. What efforts have been made regarding the
> planned activities concerning human rights and ICANN's policy processes
> as well as at the organizational level?
>
> Is everyone ok with this?
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I also would like to support the longer version of the question, as
> proposed by Niels.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Monika
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I
> law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au> I
>
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu> I
>
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I
> icann.org <http://icann.org> I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of farzaneh badii
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 2, 2016 9:00 AM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: Topics for meeting with the board in Hyderabad?
>
>
> I prefer the one with a background. Starting with following ...
>
>
> On 2 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m., "Michael Oghia" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Matthew and Farzi, do you prefer the first, shorter one, or the
> second, longer one?
>
> -Michael
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:44 AM, farzaneh badii
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Certainly better. I support too.
>
>
> On 2 Nov 2016 8:54 a.m., "Tatiana Tropina"
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of
> >>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:29 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[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 <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
>
>
> __ __
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action
> in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
> the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission
> of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. __ __
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|
