<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>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? <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/03/2017 08:43, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:U0xku3KnBqT8ERoYV71i6lG0CceWiMVXPau2kDfQdzjib-ILV0cd8ogW3xTLi2aUOe4skkzWvhdmYhFeJUp0fHyGwQAaFF-ute6LZLAu2tg=@ferdeline.com"
type="cite">
<div>Hi,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
Apparently the Board approved the anti-harrassment policy
yesterday.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Ayden <br>
</div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block ">
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton
protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div>-------- Original Message --------<br>
</div>
<div>Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the
Board<br>
</div>
<div>Local Time: 11 March 2017 3:06 PM<br>
</div>
<div>UTC Time: 11 March 2017 15:06<br>
</div>
<div>From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@CDT.ORG">mshears@CDT.ORG</a><br>
</div>
<div>To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On anti-harassment:<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> Just in case you had not seen it there is a staff summary
of the inputs <br>
</div>
<div> dating from late Jan:<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-anti-harassment-policy-26jan17-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-anti-harassment-policy-26jan17-en.pdf</a><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> On 11/03/2017 14:41, Niels ten Oever wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> > Hi all,<br>
</div>
<div> ><br>
</div>
<div> > Maybe we could also ask about the progress via-a-vis
the anti-harassment<br>
</div>
<div> > policy, it has been with the board for a while now:<br>
</div>
<div> ><br>
</div>
<div> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/anti-harassment-policy-2016-11-07-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/anti-harassment-policy-2016-11-07-en</a><br>
</div>
<div> ><br>
</div>
<div> > Best,<br>
</div>
<div> ><br>
</div>
<div> > Niels<br>
</div>
<div> ><br>
</div>
<div> > On 03/08/2017 12:42 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> >> How about this, Tapani, for the publishable
phrasing of our compliance<br>
</div>
<div> >> question?<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> In follow-up to our question in Hyderabad, and
with our new Compliance<br>
</div>
<div> >> head now assigned, we would like to revisit the
concerns we raised in<br>
</div>
<div> >> Hyderabad and see what actions have been taken to
mitigate the abuse we<br>
</div>
<div> >> reported. How might ICANN's complaint process be
modified to a) create<br>
</div>
<div> >> accountability for the party filing the
complaint, b) ensure registrants<br>
</div>
<div> >> are notified and allowed time and due process to
respond to allegations<br>
</div>
<div> >> brought to ICANN against their domain names, and
c) create protections<br>
</div>
<div> >> for Registrants who might themselves be the
target of harassment and abuse?<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> And how about this for the "publishable phrasing"
of our PICs question?<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> As you know, specific PICs were accepted into the
New gTLD Agreements<br>
</div>
<div> >> without review or check (source: Alan Grogan in
Hyderabad). Some of<br>
</div>
<div> >> these PICs contradict and even set aside GNSO
policy processes and<br>
</div>
<div> >> consensus policies. What can we do to mitigate
the problems of these<br>
</div>
<div> >> PICs? Does the "New ICANN' no longer value
consensus processes (and the<br>
</div>
<div> >> many hours of volunteer effort, time, research,
drafting, editing and<br>
</div>
<div> >> reviewing spent creating it)?<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> Edits welcome!<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> Best, Kathy<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> I would avoid mentioning specific contracted
parties, however - unless<br>
</div>
<div> >> they force you to by asking for a specific
example. Raising a specific<br>
</div>
<div> >> example con get you involved in specific policy
issues on the merits,<br>
</div>
<div> >> rather than dealing with what is the real crux of
the question, which is<br>
</div>
<div> >> how PICs can be used to contradict or set aside
the GNSO policy process<br>
</div>
<div> >> and consensus policies. Stay focused on the
principle, don't get into a<br>
</div>
<div> >> IGO names debate or a copyright debate.<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> Great suggestion, Kathy<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> --MM<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >>> -----Original Message-----<br>
</div>
<div> >>> From: NCSG-Discuss
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf<br>
</div>
<div> >>> Of Kathy Kleiman<br>
</div>
<div> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:59 AM<br>
</div>
<div> >>> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
</div>
<div> >>> Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from
and to the Board<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> Tapani,<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> I think we should also consider asking the
Board about the PICs (Public<br>
</div>
<div> >>> Interest Commitments) submitted by the New
gTLD Registries. In some<br>
</div>
<div> >>> important cases, these PICs contradict, set
aside and even bypass<br>
</div>
<div> >> Consensus<br>
</div>
<div> >>> policy a) made or b) currently being made. So
Minds + Machines, for<br>
</div>
<div> >>> example, is blocking all IGO names at the
second level of its New<br>
</div>
<div> >> gTLDs --<br>
</div>
<div> >>> although there is a full-blown GNSO Policy
Development Process WG looking<br>
</div>
<div> >>> at that very issue!<br>
</div>
<div> >><br>
</div>
<div> >> On 3/7/2017 9:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> >>> Sounds like we'll only have one question for
the board...<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> Kathy, can you have publishable phrasing for
it today?<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> Anybody else, if you have other questions to
suggest, please<br>
</div>
<div> >>> let us know TODAY. Thanks.<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> Tapani<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>> On Mar 02 10:55, Kathy Kleiman
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>) wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> >>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>> Tapani,<br>
</div>
<div> >>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>> These are questions for the Board/NCSG
Meeting, right? I think we<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> should be asking questions about
Compliance -- and continue our<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> efforts to seek fairer compliance actions
for registrants,<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> compliance actions that fall within the
scope of ICANN, and<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> compliance actions responsive to the
needs of the whole community<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> (not a subset).<br>
</div>
<div> >>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>> This is definitely not the right phrasing
yet, but we can certain<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> provide it. I know Ayden and Raoul have
been thinking about<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> compliance. Would anyone else like to
help craft a question for the<br>
</div>
<div> >>>> board? (Please respond privately.)<br>
</div>
<div> >>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>> Best, Kathy<br>
</div>
<div> >>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>> On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> Dear all,<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> As time is running short, I'll take
the liberty of hijacking<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> Farzaneh's message from NCUC list -
thank you.<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> So, questions below for all NCSG
members. The deadline is rather<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> impossible, but I don't expect sky to
fall if we extend it by<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> the weekend. Nonetheless quick
comments would be appreciated.<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> Tapani<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM
-0500, farzaneh badii<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>> (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>) wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> NCUC members,<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> Board has requested to answer the
below questions for its meeting<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> with the<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> stakeholder groups ( I think
NCSG):<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> 1. To what degree is your
membership actively participating in<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream
2? What could the Board or ICANN<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> organization do to facilitate
participation and timely completion<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> of this<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> work?<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> 2. What policy/advice issues are
top priorities for your group?<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> They also want to know what we
want to ask them during NCSG/Board<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> meeting.<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> This meeting will take place at
the NCSG level but I took the<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> liberty to<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> ask you and trigger the
discussion. If discussions take place on<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> NCSG about<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> these questions and our questions
to the Board, then we shall<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> transfer our<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> input to that thread.<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> Board has generously given us a
deadline of 3 March for submitting our<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> questions!<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> Best<br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>><br>
</div>
<div> >>>>>> Farzaneh<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div> -- <br>
</div>
<div> ------------<br>
</div>
<div> Matthew Shears<br>
</div>
<div> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
</div>
<div> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br>
</div>
<div> + 44 771 2472987<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avg.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987</pre>
</body>
</html>