Hi, Apparently the Board approved the anti-harrassment policy yesterday. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board Local Time: 11 March 2017 3:06 PM UTC Time: 11 March 2017 15:06 From: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] On anti-harassment: Just in case you had not seen it there is a staff summary of the inputs dating from late Jan: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-anti-harassment-policy-26jan17-en.pdf On 11/03/2017 14:41, Niels ten Oever wrote: > 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 -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987