Hi all, Maybe we could also ask about the progress via-a-vis the anti-harassment policy, it has been with the board for a while now: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/anti-harassment-policy-2016-11-07-en Best, Niels On 03/08/2017 12:42 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > How about this, Tapani, for the publishable phrasing of our compliance > question? > > In follow-up to our question in Hyderabad, and with our new Compliance > head now assigned, we would like to revisit the concerns we raised in > Hyderabad and see what actions have been taken to mitigate the abuse we > reported. How might ICANN's complaint process be modified to a) create > accountability for the party filing the complaint, b) ensure registrants > are notified and allowed time and due process to respond to allegations > brought to ICANN against their domain names, and c) create protections > for Registrants who might themselves be the target of harassment and abuse? > > And how about this for the "publishable phrasing" of our PICs question? > > As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the New gTLD Agreements > without review or check (source: Alan Grogan in Hyderabad). Some of > these PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO policy processes and > consensus policies. What can we do to mitigate the problems of these > PICs? Does the "New ICANN' no longer value consensus processes (and the > many hours of volunteer effort, time, research, drafting, editing and > reviewing spent creating it)? > > Edits welcome! > > Best, Kathy > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > I would avoid mentioning specific contracted parties, however - unless > they force you to by asking for a specific example. Raising a specific > example con get you involved in specific policy issues on the merits, > rather than dealing with what is the real crux of the question, which is > how PICs can be used to contradict or set aside the GNSO policy process > and consensus policies. Stay focused on the principle, don't get into a > IGO names debate or a copyright debate. > > Great suggestion, Kathy > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >> Of Kathy Kleiman >> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:59 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board >> >> Tapani, >> >> I think we should also consider asking the Board about the PICs (Public >> Interest Commitments) submitted by the New gTLD Registries. In some >> important cases, these PICs contradict, set aside and even bypass > Consensus >> policy a) made or b) currently being made. So Minds + Machines, for >> example, is blocking all IGO names at the second level of its New > gTLDs -- >> although there is a full-blown GNSO Policy Development Process WG looking >> at that very issue! > > > On 3/7/2017 9:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> Sounds like we'll only have one question for the board... >> >> Kathy, can you have publishable phrasing for it today? >> >> Anybody else, if you have other questions to suggest, please >> let us know TODAY. Thanks. >> >> Tapani >> >> >> On Mar 02 10:55, Kathy Kleiman ([log in to unmask]) wrote: >> >>> Tapani, >>> >>> These are questions for the Board/NCSG Meeting, right? I think we >>> should be asking questions about Compliance -- and continue our >>> efforts to seek fairer compliance actions for registrants, >>> compliance actions that fall within the scope of ICANN, and >>> compliance actions responsive to the needs of the whole community >>> (not a subset). >>> >>> This is definitely not the right phrasing yet, but we can certain >>> provide it. I know Ayden and Raoul have been thinking about >>> compliance. Would anyone else like to help craft a question for the >>> board? (Please respond privately.) >>> >>> Best, Kathy >>> >>> On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> As time is running short, I'll take the liberty of hijacking >>>> Farzaneh's message from NCUC list - thank you. >>>> >>>> So, questions below for all NCSG members. The deadline is rather >>>> impossible, but I don't expect sky to fall if we extend it by >>>> the weekend. Nonetheless quick comments would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> Tapani >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM -0500, farzaneh badii >>>> ([log in to unmask]) wrote: >>>> >>>>> NCUC members, >>>>> >>>>> Board has requested to answer the below questions for its meeting >>>>> with the >>>>> stakeholder groups ( I think NCSG): >>>>> >>>>> 1. To what degree is your membership actively participating in >>>>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2? What could the Board or ICANN >>>>> organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion >>>>> of this >>>>> work? >>>>> 2. What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They also want to know what we want to ask them during NCSG/Board >>>>> meeting. >>>>> >>>>> This meeting will take place at the NCSG level but I took the >>>>> liberty to >>>>> ask you and trigger the discussion. If discussions take place on >>>>> NCSG about >>>>> these questions and our questions to the Board, then we shall >>>>> transfer our >>>>> input to that thread. >>>>> >>>>> Board has generously given us a deadline of 3 March for submitting our >>>>> questions! >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9