<div dir="ltr">Hi Niels, <div><br></div><div>Thanks for this clarification. In that case, I think it makes sense to ask the questions. If they want to "take steps" without having finalized the WS2 HR work, then I think it is an issue we need to raise. I hope we won't have parallel processes. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 November 2016 at 14:10, Niels ten Oever <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org" target="_blank">lists@digitaldissidents.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Tatiana,<br>
<br>
The board has mentioned (in the last NCSG-Board session) that they<br>
wanted to take steps, and so did individual board members in the CCWP HR<br>
session.<br>
<br>
I would like to ensure that we're fully aware of all the processes that<br>
are taking place, to ensure that there is no duplication of efforts and<br>
we can make progress in full transparency.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Niels<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/01/2016 06:17 PM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:<br>
> I am sorry for intervening on the late stage of this discussion, but why<br>
> are we asking the board about human rights at all, when there is a WS2<br>
> that has to provide a framework of interpretation for the HR core value?<br>
> Am I missing something? Some of the board members are taking part in<br>
> this process, but it's a community process.<br>
> I don't understand the purpose of this question.<br>
> Cheers<br>
> Tanya<br>
><br>
> On 1 November 2016 at 13:15, Niels ten Oever<br>
</span><span class="">> <<a href="mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org">lists@digitaldissidents.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lists@digitaldissidents.org">lists@<wbr>digitaldissidents.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Milton,<br>
><br>
> Did you read my email? I gave two suggestions and explained you why I<br>
> thought the first covered the latter as well.<br>
><br>
> Let's be constructive.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Niels<br>
><br>
> On 11/01/2016 05:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
> > I think Niels is seriously misguided to think that we should not be<br>
> > asking Icann about the HR impact of its policies. I - and I think a<br>
> > lot of others in this constituency - will Oppose asking that question<br>
> > at all if it is limited to ICANN' "organization". I mean what a waste<br>
> > of our time. Icann's main mission is to make policies - that's where<br>
> > the human rights implications are most salient.<br>
> ><br>
> > Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute<br>
> > of Technology<br>
> ><br>
> >> On Nov 1, 2016, at 17:11, Niels ten Oever<br>
> >> <<a href="mailto:lists@DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG">lists@DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lists@DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG">lists@<wbr>DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >> Dear Milton,<br>
> >><br>
> >> You chapnged the scope of question 4 and there is also still a typo<br>
> >> in it.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The typo is one 'is' too many, it should be fixed like this:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human<br>
> >>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Also changing the scope from organization to policies is not one I<br>
> >> agree with. Am happy to elaborate in Hyderabad why that is the<br>
> >> case.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In short: policies would also fall under 'organization', but not<br>
> >> vice versa. If you're adamanent about this, we could also do:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board making to implement a Human<br>
> >>> Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization and/or its<br>
> >>> policies?<br>
> >><br>
> >> But I think that's worse.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Best,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Niels<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>> On 11/01/2016 10:35 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: Hi Milton,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Agreed, I was in too much of a hurry, your suggestions for 3 & 4<br>
> >>> are better.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I also tend to agree with Dave that "ICANN legal" is better than<br>
> >>> "ICANN lawyer", makes it look less like a personal attack.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Tapani<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 08:37:32AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L<br>
</div></div><span class="">> >>>> (<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>) wrote:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Tapani, You did a great job of phrasing the first question,<br>
> >>>> which is a highly sensitive one, taking lots of input and<br>
> >>>> forming it into a coherent question that meets all our<br>
> >>>> concerns. 2nd one works well, too.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The 3rd and 4th questions on the other hand seem to be a bit<br>
> >>>> confusing. Can you agree to rephrase them as follows?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> 3. In the Whois Complaint process, anonymous people can make<br>
> >>>>> complaints that he data is inaccurate and in some cases cause<br>
> >>>>> trouble for innocent registrants. Why doesn't ICANN ever<br>
> >>>>> investigate whether these allegations are intended to harass<br>
> >>>>> or intimidate registrants or are made for anti- competitive<br>
> >>>>> reasons?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> 4. What steps is the ICANN board is making to implement a<br>
> >>>>> Human Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN policies?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss<br>
> >>>>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a>>] On Behalf Of Tapani<br>
> >>>>> Tarvainen Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 9:30 AM To:<br>
> >>>>> <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a>> Subject: Re: Topics for meeting<br>
<div><div class="h5">> >>>>> with the board in Hyderabad?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Collecting and combining topics here's what I came up to ask<br>
> >>>>> the board. Way past deadline, have to send it today, if<br>
> >>>>> anybody spots glaring errors please let me know ASAP.<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> 1. How does the Board expect the the new complaint system to<br>
> >>>>> work when it puts ICANN's lawyer, whose job is to protect the<br>
> >>>>> corporation from complainers whether they are right or wrong,<br>
> >>>>> in charge of managing complaints? Has the Board considered<br>
> >>>>> how it affects the independence of the Ombudsman? As an<br>
> >>>>> example of our concerns, why there were no repercussions for<br>
> >>>>> the abuses of TLD evaluation procedures in the Dot Registry<br>
> >>>>> case?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> 2. Does the Board continue to agree with Fadi Chehade's<br>
> >>>>> position of Summer 2015 that ICANN does not police content,<br>
> >>>>><br>
> <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/news/<wbr>blog/icann-is-not-the-<wbr>internet-content-police</a><br>
> <<a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/news/<wbr>blog/icann-is-not-the-<wbr>internet-content-police</a>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> (published by Alan Grogan, ICANN's Chief Contract Compliance Officer)?<br>
> >>>>> Does the Board share our concerns that arrangements like the<br>
> >>>>> MPAA-Donuts agreement are deeply inappropriate for the Domain<br>
> >>>>> Name System?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> 3. The Whois Complaint process and why anonymous people can<br>
> >>>>> ask for personal information about registrants. Why ICANN<br>
> >>>>> never investigates whether these allegations are intended to<br>
> >>>>> harass, intimidate or for anti- competitive reasons?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> 4. What steps the ICANN board is making and when to implement<br>
> >>>>> a Human Rights Impact Assessment of ICANN the organization?<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> -- Tapani Tarvainen<br>
> >><br>
> >> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital<br>
> >><br>
</div></div>> >> Article 19 <a href="http://www.article19.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a> <<a href="http://www.article19.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.article19.org</a>><br>
<span class="">> >><br>
> >> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D<br>
> >> 68E9<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Niels ten Oever<br>
> Head of Digital<br>
><br>
> Article 19<br>
</span>> <a href="http://www.article19.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a> <<a href="http://www.article19.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.article19.org</a>><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
--<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a href="http://www.article19.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.article19.org</a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Farzaneh </div>
</div>