[gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Thu Aug 17 21:23:59 UTC 2017

Hi folks,

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>  That
> would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid
> reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that
> they are looking for anyway.  What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that?

I think those that support a position (after all the evidence/data is
collected, analyzed, etc.) have to also *justify* that position with
good reasons. "Show your work", to throw back a statement Greg has
made occasionally.

This prevents the bad incentives that you speak about, where people
simply "gum up the process" by holding to a position that is untenable
and diverges from the facts/evidence and analysis. If folks have
watched the film "12 Angry Men" (I watched it again a few days ago --
only 96 mins in length), you'll see what I mean, here's one quote that
might sound familiar:

Juror #7: I don't know about the rest of 'em but I'm gettin' a little
tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it's gettin' us nowhere.
So I guess *I'll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not
Juror #3: You *what?*
Juror #7: You heard me, I've... had enough.
Juror #3: Whaddaya mean, you've had enough? That's no answer!
Juror #7: Hey, listen, you just uh... take care of yourself, 'uh? You know?
Juror #11: He's right. That's not an answer. What kind of a man are
you? You have sat here and voted "guilty" with everyone else because
there are some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket? And now
you've changed your vote because you say you're sick of all the
talking here?
Juror #7: Now listen, buddy - !
Juror #11: Who tells you that you have the right like this to play
with a man's life? Don't you care...
Juror #7: Now wait a minute! You can't talk like that to me - !
Juror #11: I *can* talk like that to you! If you want to vote "not
guilty", then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty,
not because you've "had enough". And if you think he is guilty, then
vote that way! Or don't you have the guts to do what you think is
Juror #7: Now listen...
Juror #11: Guilty or not guilty?
Juror #7: I told ya! Not guilty!
Juror #11: Why?
Juror #7: ...Look, I don't have tuh...
Juror #11: You *do* have to! *Say* it! *Why?*
Juror #7: Uhh... I don't, uh... think he's guilty!
[Juror #11 stares back with impatient resignation, and finally returns
to his seat]

Otherwise, some 'votes' for an untenable position are really just a
sham, and would be weighted accordingly when viewed by those outside
the PDP, including at the GNSO council level "above" us.

One thing the IGO PDP (which I'm also a member of) has done very well,
in my opinion, is provide *extensive* footnotes all throughout its
final report to explain/support all the analysis, to defend its
conclusions against attack (we're about 95% finished our work in that


George Kirikos

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list