Certainly better. I support too. On 2 Nov 2016 8:54 a.m., "Tatiana Tropina" <[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]> > 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]] On Behalf >> Of >> >>> Tapani Tarvainen >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:29 PM >> >>> To: [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]) 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 >> >>>> >> >>>> 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 >> >