<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi all,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">based on the latest summary from Tapani to pick 2 questions and suggestions from Kathy to add more background, the questions to be sent the board would be :</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px">1/ Ombudsman performance and monitoring</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">how is the Board monitoring the performance of the Office of the Ombudsman to ensure that harassment complaints filed are being appropriately handled?</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px">2/ </span><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000">Consumer Safeguards</font></span></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><p>1) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand trademark law. In fact, within ICANN we negotiate consensus policies that balance trademark protections with free expression and fair use protections, devoting considerable amounts of volunteer efforts, and then registries adopt rejected consensus policies as private policies. Why have consensus policies at all then? Is the PDP process still relevant? </p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p>2) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand compliance to "abuse" in an array of content areas. What concerns does the Board have, and NCSG, about the Consumer Safeguard Directors question about "whether ICANN should collaborate with other stakeholders regarding abuse." [Recent Consumer Safeguards webinar/meeting] Would that collaboration be within the scope and mission of ICANN or outside of it? How actively do already-overworked volunteers have to work to request that ICANN stay within its mission? </p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p>3) There is pressure on ICANN to support anything that registries have put into their public interest commitments -- whether it is within the scope and mission of ICANN or not. For example, a number of registries put provisions into their Public Interest Commitments that they will adopt future anti-abuse policies and then consider them part of the PIC. Should that anti-abuse policy not be fair, balanced, or within the scope of ICANN's mission, e.g., (no Martians are allowed to register domain names), what role will Compliance Staff and Consumer Safeguards Director play in enforcement -- or non-enforcement -- of these provisions? </p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><p>Best,</p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p>Rafik</p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-06 21:37 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Milton, We asked that umbrella question fairly recently, in
Copenhagen, I think, about whether ICANN would be expanding its
work outside its mission in response to the various pressures, and
Goran responded with the one word answer "no."</p>
<p>That's why this time, your statement offers a good umbrella, but
I would include some specific subparts (it also lets ICANN Staff
know they should be in the room to help address the question.)
Some ideas that come to mind: <br>
</p>
<p>* * * * <br>
</p><span class="gmail-">
<pre>Could we make this question a more general one about the various pressures for ICANN to expand its mission?
</pre>
</span><p>1) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand
trademark law. In fact, within ICANN we negotiate consensus
policies that balance trademark protections with free expression
and fair use protections, devoting considerable amounts of
volunteer efforts, and then registries adopt rejected consensus
policies as private policies. Why have consensus policies at all
then? Is the PDP process still relevant? <br>
</p>
<p>2) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand
compliance to "abuse" in an array of content areas. What concerns
does the Board have, and NCSG, about the Consumer Safeguard
Directors question about "whether ICANN should collaborate with
other stakeholders regarding abuse." [Recent Consumer Safeguards
webinar/meeting] Would that collaboration be within the scope and
mission of ICANN or outside of it? How actively do
already-overworked volunteers have to work to request that ICANN
stay within its mission? <br>
</p>
<p>3) There is pressure on ICANN to support anything that registries
have put into their public interest commitments -- whether it is
within the scope and mission of ICANN or not. For example, a
number of registries put provisions into their Public Interest
Commitments that they will adopt future anti-abuse policies and
then consider them part of the PIC. Should that anti-abuse policy
not be fair, balanced, or within the scope of ICANN's mission,
e.g., (no Martians are allowed to register domain names), what
role will Compliance Staff and Consumer Safeguards Director play
in enforcement -- or non-enforcement -- of these provisions? <br>
</p>
<p>Best and enjoy Abu Dhabi, Kathy<br>
</p><span class="gmail-">
On 2017-10-05 17:07, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Could we make this question a more general one about the various pressures for ICANN to expand its mission?
Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a class="gmail-m_-263495894145090807moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.<wbr>SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf
Of Tapani Tarvainen
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 2:01 AM
To: <a class="gmail-m_-263495894145090807moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: Re: Questions to the Board in ICANN60
Kathy,
Could you open your question up a bit? I think many people could use some
background as well as some thoughts about what we'd hope to get from the
board.
Tapani
On Oct 05 08:39, Rafik Dammak (<a class="gmail-m_-263495894145090807moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>(3) Why should the Consumer Safeguards Director be asking the
Community what he should be doing
This is another good question, though one that probably would not
fly if offered to the council (might be worth a shot though).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>trying to understand the question, are we asking the new director or
the board position on the topic?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>