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