[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection

Thu Aug 10 05:28:39 UTC 2017

I don't think anyone here is uncomfortable with debate.  I think that's an
artificial construct -- a "paper tiger".  I understand that some
participants will keep going until someone rings the bell and ends the
bout, even if the only scorecard on which they're winning is their own. In
such cases, I think it's up to the co-chairs, in their official capacities,
to bring debates to a close when the time is ripe.

I call on the co-chairs to do so in this case.  We've reached the point of
beating a dead horse on this subject, and no level of relentlessness,
rhetoric, or "spin" is going to give the "Kill The Sunrise" proposal any
more traction than it already has -- which is very little.  I've read this
thread as it rolled in, though I didn't have the time to respond, and
others responded in line with my thoughts anyway.  I try to keep an open
mind; however, I saw nothing that would persuade me to change my position
-- that the Sunrise largely works but there are loopholes that need to be
fixed.

In any event, I'll leave this one to the co-chairs.

Greg

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:35 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> > Can we stop this back and forth on the same issue. A number of folks
> have told you they do not support a proposal to eliminate sunrise‎. So in
> mind I think we know what the positions are.  It is not helpful to keep
> re-hashing the same points. Can we just move on to discussing possible
> fixes  for the limited gaming issue as a separate topic.
>
> Sometimes I have to wonder if some posts on this mailing list are some
> form of parody, or whether they're actually serious. You already know
> the answer, given the two posts earlier today:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002304.html
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002307.html
>
> Arguing about "stopping this back and forth on the same issue", in
> light of an identical conversation must be a parody.....
>
> As for the multiple +1s later, some folks might want to re-read the
> message from May 5th:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html
>
> "In particular, if you feel compelled to send a “+1” or “Agree”
> message please just hit “Reply” and not “Reply All”. That way the
> sender of the original message will know of your support without the
> other 150-plus members of the WG having to take time away from their
> other work.
>
> We actually learned many new things today through the civil discourse,
> exposing more cracks in the positions of those supporting sunrises.
> These include two registry operator reps openly stated that a sunrise
> policy is "moot" or "academic", since they'd implement one even if not
> mandated. If anything, that demonstrates movement towards Jeremy's
> proposal (indifferent to it being accepted), not away from it.
>
> There's a long history of initial "majority" support for policies at
> ICANN evaporating as more data/evidence is collected, and as positions
> are more thoroughly scrutinized.
>
> Just 2 quick ones:
>
> 1. It was my analysis of the deeply flawed .biz/info/org contracts
> (which would have allowed tiered pricing) that got them killed,
> despite the father of the internet, Vint Cerf, disagreeing with the
> impact of that analysis:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_
> info_org_domain/
>
> That analysis still rings true today, as new gTLDs exploit the
> unlimited pricing power that they were wrongly granted in the new gTLD
> program.
>
> 2. IRTP-B PDP -- https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/
> 2012/irtp-b
>
> In that PDP, I wasn't a member initially, but joined it after they
> made a deeply flawed proposal regarding domain transfers. Due to
> "group think", they came up with a ridiculous proposal called the
> "ETRP", which would have allowed transfers to be undone within 6
> months (which would have had enormous impacts on the secondary market
> for domains). You can see my first substantial post to that PDP (after
> my initial post) at:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00301.html
>
> I even openly pointed out the "group think"
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00332.html
>
> I was so sickened at being ignored (despite being right) that I even
> left the list:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00425.html
>
> however I continued to press the issue amongst stakeholders, and guess
> what?!?!? The proposal was killed! Enough outrage was expressed by the
> public (which I helped mobilize) in the comment period:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/index.html
>
> that the ETRP died on the vine. And, in that PDP, I was the *sole*
> voice of opposition within that group to their proposal (having joined
> it to expressly voice why it was flawed).
>
> Now, I don't give these examples to aggrandize myself, but to point
> out the historical broken processes appear to be repeating themselves,
> when there are serious contributors to this PDP (not just myself) that
> have a long track record of being right, even when it appears they're
> in a minority (even a minority of just one). Go see the film "12 Angry
> Men" as a more dramatic example.
>
> The way to put forth stronger positions is to actually back them up
> with facts and arguments, not just saying essentially "I'm not going
> to be convinced by anything you have to say, so don't bother." That's
> not consistent with evidence-based policymaking or even appropriate
> debating tactics. Indeed, it's a form of a "tell" from those whose
> positions are unable to withstand scrutiny, to make that sort of weak
> "Please, say no more" statement.
>
> So, here's some simple advice --- try putting yourself in the shoes of
> the other person, to see things from their point of view! You might be
> in a better position to see the weakness of your own arguments, or the
> strength of theirs, and can then make adjustments to try to get a
> strong consensus. Folks who've read my posts will note I've bent over
> backward to attempt to curb cybersquatting (they're no friend of
> mine), via balanced proposals.
>
> Because, at the end of the day, this PDP has to produce reports that
> survive wide *public* scrutiny, not just some "majority" that is
> participating actively in this group. History has shown us that a weak
> report can and will be savaged (it was kind of funny, after the ETRP
> was savaged by the public, the remaining PDP members came begging for
> my insights, which I graciously provided). [as an aside, don't expect
> me to do an "Atlas Shrugged" post in this PDP -- this time, I'm not in
> a minority of 1]
>
> I'll conclude by saying to those who are "uncomfortable" by debate --
> get used to it! Accept that weak positions and analysis will be
> challenged. Rather than attempting to stifle those challenges, come up
> with stronger arguments/facts.
>
> Good night.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170810/25e37aa0/attachment-0001.html>