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