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

Sun Apr 1 16:08:07 UTC 2018

+1 chuck

this article may be interesting 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-for-privacy-regulation-1522257430 <https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-for-privacy-regulation-1522257430>


> On Apr 1, 2018, at 19:29, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg


Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>

"Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180401/844d60ef/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180401/844d60ef/KeepItOn_Social_animated-0001.gif>