Calling something "not meaningful" is very easy. But it does not devalue its merits, fortunately. Please provide a rationale for why the questions are not meaningful. I don't have to consult with the co-chairs to discuss the questions here. If the group feels that it is unnecessary to discuss these questions they can simply not respond, if they feel we should re-formulate them, then we can.

The questions are to clarify what we mean by ICANN should not become a content regulator. The discussions that can arise responding to the question and sub-questions which I have posted can lead us towards a more tangible understanding of what we mean when we say ICANN should not become a content regulator and should not go out of its scope and mission when upholding human rights.

Best

Farzaneh

On 4 September 2016 at 17:34, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,
I do not understand the meaning and purpose of these questions.
Perhaps the author of the questions could consult other two co chairs and come up with meaningfull text.
We can not send out these questions at all
Reagrds
Kavouss

2016-09-04 14:25 GMT+02:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>:
Hi all,

Sorry for sending out the questions late. I wanted to provide a gist of what we discussed during our call and then provide the questions but unfortunately, we still do not have the recording. Below are some questions for the group to discuss:

Considering ICANN's scope and mission, when should ICANN uphold human rights?

- In its consideration to enter into contracts with registries and registrars? (for example, when they are considering a new gTLD application)

- During the contractual relationship with the registries and the registrars by obligating the registries and registrars to enforce human rights?

Best

--
Farzaneh

_______________________________________________
Ws2-hr mailing list
Ws2-hr@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-hr

Farzaneh