<div>I am not sure of the text of the final resolution unfortunately. To my knowledge, it was not publicly circulated before the board meeting yesterday. However, the attached file is one that Lousewies tweeted at the conclusion of the board meeting. Maybe we can ask her, when we meet her at 4pm today, for clarity around what was approved.<br></div><div><br></div><div> - Ayden</div><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board<br></div><div>Local Time: 12 March 2017 9:01 AM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 12 March 2017 09:01<br></div><div>From: mshears@CDT.ORG<br></div><div>To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><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><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/03/2017 08:43, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>Apparently the Board approved the anti-harrassment policy
yesterday.<br></div></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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@CDT.ORG">mshears@CDT.ORG</a><br></div><div>To: <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" 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><div><br></div><table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;"><tbody><tr><td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29" width="46"></a><br></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 rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avg.com</a><br></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br></div><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987<br></pre></blockquote><div><br></div>