I agree with you Milton. The problem is in my view that it was announced as a “fait accompli” of the CEO, and not based on an official Board Decision to the best of my knowledge. So: what are the chances that with this draft question the Board will just say this is within the CEO´s executive remit, next Question please??? It sadly happens often with our questions…. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 1 Nov 2016, at 17:25, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > I think the question about ICANN legal is the most important and if > not asked first it should be asked second. > > Milton L Mueller > Professor, School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > >> On Oct 31, 2016, at 21:34, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I agree that Question 1 is quite confrontational. I do not expect we >> will get a useful response from the board on this in our session >> (though if they get similar queries from other quarters throughout >> the week they may take it seriously). I think the most valuable thing >> we can do about this issue is consult with colleagues in other SGs >> and ACs and ensure the board is getting similar messages voiced to >> them. But it is still important for us to raise the issue. I’d also >> consider rephrasing it so it is ‘ICANN Legal’ rather than ICANNs >> lawyer, to make it a little less personal - if its seen as a personal >> attack on someone they like, it makes them more inclined to circle >> the wagons. >> >> I’d consider rephrasing question 2 a little so the board can give >> us an answer that is more practical than judgemental. Perhaps rather >> than ‘deeply inappropriate’ something like ‘constitute a form >> of content control via the DNS, and do not belong within the ICANN >> policy process’ or something? I don’t think the board is going to >> suddenly make a strong statement against the DNA, but a board >> commitment to not letting this stuff into a PICDRP or something would >> be helpful? >> >> I suspect question #3 might get an answer along the lines of ‘there >> are a whole lot of WHOIS policy processes going on right now, you >> should pursue this issue through them’. But we might get something >> more useful, maybe. >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> >>> On 31 Oct. 2016, at 7:49 pm, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tapani, >>> >>> These questions look great - hitting some important and concerning >>> issues for NCSG and the ICANN Community. >>> >>> Per Bill's suggestion, may I suggest we move Question #1 to #3 or >>> #4? As Bill noted, the Content question (current #2) is one that we >>> are supporting the Board on (Steve Crocker has been great on pushing >>> back against using the DNS for content control). The Whois may be >>> one that we can gather support on too. Human Rights may be in a >>> similar category. >>> >>> Current Question #1 is an adversarial one, as Bill pointed out. He >>> suggested we move it to after the questions on which we are likely >>> to have agreement, such as content. (To rephrase Bill, can we have >>> our "kumbaya" moments first?) >> >> >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> >>>> On 10/31/2016 9:29 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> 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? >>>> >>>>