<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">Brotherman, see my responses inline.</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>==============================<br><i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Carlton A Samuels</font></i><br><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><i>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i></font><br>=============================</div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:40 PM Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hello Carlton,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I hear you loud and clear, but if we are being realistic, I think the level of representation that exist within the ePDP may be a factor on how far one can push these things. I have heard a couple of times that the numbers don't matter but how loud we "constructively" <span style="font-family:sans-serif">scream</span>, well within ICANN, that's probably nothing more than a good motivational speech.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">True, numbers do matter. And yes, they truly matter for one reason you implied; managed outcomes. </span> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Attempts has been made to get this through via the ePDP without luck</div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">It is what it is because numbers matter. And if you cannot convince enough 'votes' to peel with you then all that is left is the moral high ground. Leaves you with one tool, moral outrage. </span> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">We could have acted up, carried on, publish even a mild statement of 'concern'. Exercise<b><i> our </i></b>nuclear option; go on record as not endorsing Phase 1 outcome!</span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"> and since ALAC practically has a milk teeth on ePDP, I don't think it will be out of order to utilize that which we've always been reminded of as being our role, which is to advice; </div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">When we ceded the moral high ground we effortlessly messaged these were "nice-to- haves". </span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">hopefully there are still some permanent teeth left in there.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">Yeah, but if results matter then we're back in the lane where the Board response is pre-ordained; a shrug of the shoulders and a 'what can I tell ya, we think your gripes have merit but we can hardly go against the consensus position of the WG, can we? Plus one out of three of your issues still in play. It ain't all that bad!' The end.</span> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br>Regards<br><div dir="auto">Sent from my mobile<br>Kindly excuse brevity and typos</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, 17:54 Carlton Samuels, <<a href="mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">carlton.samuels@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Thick WHOIS made sense back then - and some of us were savaged for taking that position! - and still does today, if only because if every GTLD operator has the same obligations it is easier to check compliance. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The distinction between legal and natural persons and why that would matter is, um, well, I am loathe to commit 2 more brain cells to that argument. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The wave and momentum of national data privacy law and regulations is tacking the EU way. So in the final analysis a geographic distinction has no long term value.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Do we have a new solution to offer anywhere? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And why does this 'advise the Board request/require' sound so much like we got popped in the mouth in the schoolyard and ran to teacher for justice?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A better posture is to make the arguments we favour sharper and put them on the wire for the WG to see. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Orchestrate and manufacture consent!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Carlton.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 8:59 am Alan Greenberg, <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.<br>
<br>
Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.<br>
<br>
Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
registration-issues-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>