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

Mon Apr 2 13:14:19 UTC 2018

Well said Chuck. 

Thank you. 

Statton

Statton Hammock
V.P. Global Policy & Industry Development
MarkMonitor / Part of Clarivate Analytics 
Ph.:  415.971.3561
statton.hammock at markmonitor.com

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Chuck
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2018 8:29 AM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br>; volker at greimann.de
Cc: 'Donna Austin' <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org; 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; 'Rafik Dammak' <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Blog re Session with European DPAs
Importance: High

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