That's what I heard too, but which version? Cheers, Niels On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 03:43:40AM -0400, 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 -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3