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]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>