Hi Niels,
Thanks for this clarification. In that case, I think it makes sense to ask
the questions. If they want to "take steps" without having finalized the
WS2 HR work, then I think it is an issue we need to raise. I hope we won't
have parallel processes.
On 1 November 2016 at 14:10, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> 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
>
--
Farzaneh
|