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

Thu Aug 10 10:42:40 UTC 2017

I'm sorry George if my email wasn't sufficiently clear, but after debating mandatory sunrises for literally 8 years of my life I think that the time has come to call the debate in this round.  While I would support the original IRT proposal to make either sunrise or claims mandatory, I do not support simply throwing out the sunrise requirement for the future.  If we cut that kind of a hole in the RPM "tapestry" (old timers might appreciate the reference or not), then we will have to fill it somewhere else. That's just the reality.  I have not heard or seen any persuasive evidence or comments to change the 2012 requirements on sunrise, but I have seen from Kurt and others a strong rationale for keeping sunrise mandatory.  The point that I made about registries doing it anyway should go to the concerns raised about the harms of a sunrise process  -- it generally will happen anyway, but registries should have the flexibility to minimize such harms.  I would be happy if the debate moved on the Claims where we might have more alignment.

Best,

jon

> On 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170810/e5ec973e/signature.asc>