I prefer the one with a background. Starting with following ... On 2 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m., "Michael Oghia" <[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]> > 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 >>>> >>> >