[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Blog re Session with European DPAs

[Chuck]

I tried to send a brief message from my phone yesterday to end this thread
but apparently it failed so I am asking that it end now.

There is ABSOLUTLELY NOTHING gained by criticizing or blaming any interest
groups in this WG.  If any member thinks that we as a leadership team are
favoring any one group over another, then I encourage and welcome you to
communicate that to the Leadership Team in private.  If you do not trust the
leaders to deal with your complaint fairly, then you should send your
complaint to the GNSO Council leadership because the Council is a policy
development manager; note that I cc'd the Council leaders on this message.

There is NO WAY we can develop legitimate policy if we do not listen to and
consider the input from EVERY IMPACTED GROUP. 

To be specific, I want to clearly state the following:
	- Registrars are essential participants in our deliberations; they
are impacted directly by whatever policy we recommend because they are
required to implement any Consensus Policy approved by the Board, and they
are the only ones who fully understand their operations.  The goal of every
WG member MUST BE to understand registrars' perspective and explore ways to
accommodate their needs, even if you may not always agree with everything
they propose.
	- Private parties who are managing domain name abuse are essential
participants in our deliberations; they are impacted by whatever policy we
recommend if they are unable to manage domain name abuse. The goal of every
WG member MUST be to understand the input of these parties and explore ways
to accommodate their needs, even if you may not always agree with everything
they propose.
	- IP rights holders are essential participants in our deliberations;
they are impacted by whatever policy we recommend if they are unable to
manage their rights. The goal of every WG member MUST be to understand the
input of IP rights holders and explore ways to accommodate their needs, even
if you may not always agree with everything they propose.

Over the last several months, I thought that we had made good progress in
working constructively with one another.  It appeared to me that parties
from all interest groups had done a good job of trying to understand each
other's concerns, of treating each other respectfully and of trying to be
constructive.  That ended with several of the messages in this thread over
the last few days.  I was very tempted to call out member names who violated
behavior rules in this thread, but I decided not to do that now, believing
that the guilty parties know who they are.  Let me warn you though, that I
am ready to do that going forward if needed.

If you cannot commit to constructive participation in this WG, then I
suggest you remove yourself as a member and encourage others to participate
who support your interests and who will participate constructively.  Like I
said above, we MUST have the input of all impacted stakeholders to do our
job right.

Let me remind everyone that being constructive does NOT mean we will not
disagree with one another, but it does mean that we will express our
disagreement respectfully and in a way that leads to better understanding
and is not critical of the person or group.

Finally, let me thank several of you tried to encourage good WG behavior.

Chuck


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2018 5:52 AM
To: volker at greimann.de
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Blog re Session with European DPAs


And while every group thinks ICANN is captured by some other group's
interests, people don't notice that ICANN Org's only capture is its
self-preservation, not the multi-stakeholder model or a non-fractured
Internet. Leading by conflict is part of the mechanism.



Rubens


> On 1 Apr 2018, at 08:39, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
wrote:
> 
> Roughly translated version:
>> Sorry for being late to the party, but- IP interests dominate these icann
working groups and they dominated this working group too before the rest of
us showed up. Even though the statement that ICANN makes its money from
domain fees collected by registrars is very debatable, I am going to defend
it nontheless as it serves my agenda.
> 
>> And registrars are always blamed for everything, so we will too. Even
though the appearance of regulatory capture is unfair (which i am not the
judge of and so cannot say), that is the appearance at this point for those
of us that care little to nothing about privacy issues or legal
requirements.
>> 
>> Its amusing to see the first comment on his blog is from someone claiming
that it is not necessary to use whois for security purposes. While the same
argument made many times on this list by many registrars here is absolutely
correct, we will continue to belabor this point as it would require us
changing our ways.  The author of the blog post is the vice president of
RiskIQ. Fall to your knees and adore him now! Maybe he knows a thing or two
about using whois for security purposes. Just maybe. Bwahahahahahaha.
>> 
>> If you google search for any other news coverage on this situation, zou
will find that we have very vocal lobbyists on our side so most of it is
pretty critical about the loss of security we are claiming we would be
looking forward to, and critical of ICANN's procrastination, and so far none
that we care about are heralding this as any kind of great victory for the
tiny percentage of registrants who will receive significantly smaller
volumes of spam. But as spam/protection is not the kind of security we care
about and pays nothing, who cares? You might not like it, but that's how it
is. We were whining about this for a year now instead of starting to think
about how to do our jobs without relying on the violation of the privacy
rights of millions.
> TL;DR We are right, you are wrong!
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg