-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the BoardLocal Time: 12 March 2017 9:01 AMUTC Time: 12 March 2017 09:01From: [log in to unmask]Ayden - thanks. Do we know what version of the text they approved? The last public communication as far as I know was the staff report below. Was the/a text circulated before the Board meeting?
On 12/03/2017 08:43, Ayden FĂ©rdeline wrote:Hi,Apparently the Board approved the anti-harrassment policy yesterday.- Ayden-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the BoardLocal Time: 11 March 2017 3:06 PMUTC Time: 11 March 2017 15:06On anti-harassment:Just in case you had not seen it there is a staff summary of the inputsdating from late Jan: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:>>> 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>>> 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>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ShearsGlobal Internet Policy and Human RightsCenter for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987
Virus-free. www.avg.com -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987