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 Férdeline wrote: > 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 > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > Virus-free. www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987