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]> 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]> 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]) 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]] On Behalf Of Tapani > >>>>> Tarvainen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:30 AM To: > >>>>> [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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > (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 > >> > >> 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 >