Thanks Michael, looks good to me! Cheers, Niels On 11/02/2016 05:07 PM, Michael Oghia wrote: > Hi Niels, > > No problem, and you're right -- I didn't mean to change the meaning. > Here is the updated version you wrote with the more accurate language of > what you meant (I changed the spelling of Marrakech and capitalized > Board in both places to be consistent): > > *4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at > the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what > steps the Board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to > the ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and > what activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's > policy processes as well as ICANN the organization? > * > > Look ok to you and everyone? > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Niels ten Oever > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Dear Michael, > > Thanks for your clean up of the language. Unfortunately this changed the > meaning of the question. What I suggested was: > > 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? > > The change you are making in relation to accountability process and the > difference between ICANN policies and the organization is a bit > problematic, but I think you did not intended this, so taking all the > other good parts from your suggestions it would be: > > 4. Following up on the discussion between the NCSG and the Board at the > Marakesh meeting (ICANN55) , we are very interested to hear what steps > the board is taking in relation to human rights in addition to the > ongoing accountability processes. What efforts have been made and what > activities are planned in relation to human rights and ICANN's policy > processes as well as ICANN the organization? > > I hope we can go ahead with this. > > Best, > > Niels > > > > > On 11/02/2016 04:33 PM, Michael Oghia wrote: > > Thank you Farzaneh and Monika for your feedback. For the record, I also > > prefer the longer question with context. To recap, this is the question > > as it stands (as originally proposed by Niels and edited by me): > > > > 4. Following-up on the discussion between the NCSG and the board at > > the Marrakech meeting (ICANN55), we are very interested to hear what > > steps the board is taking in relation to human rights as well as > > the accountability processes. What efforts have been made regarding the > > planned activities concerning human rights and ICANN's policy processes > > as well as at the organizational level? > > > > Is everyone ok with this? > > > > Best, > > -Michael > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika > > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote: > > > > I also would like to support the longer version of the question, as > > proposed by Niels. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Monika > > > > > > ---- > > > > Dr. Monika Zalnieriute > > > > > > Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I > > law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au> > <http://law.unimelb.edu.au> I > > > > Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I > > cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu> <http://cmds.ceu.edu> I > > > > Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I > > icann.org <http://icann.org> <http://icann.org> I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> on behalf of farzaneh badii > > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 2, 2016 9:00 AM > > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > *Subject:* Re: Topics for meeting with the board in Hyderabad? > > > > > > I prefer the one with a background. Starting with following ... > > > > > > On 2 Nov 2016 9:54 a.m., "Michael Oghia" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> > wrote: > > > > Certainly better. I support too. > > > > > > On 2 Nov 2016 8:54 a.m., "Tatiana Tropina" > > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>] On Behalf Of > > >>> Tapani Tarvainen > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:29 PM > > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 > <http://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> > <http://www.article19.org> > > > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > > > __ __ > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or > > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > > privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, > > distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action > > in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than > > the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission > > of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please > > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > __ __ > > > > > > -- > 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