[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 4 13:26:06 UTC 2018
I don’t see this issue as black or white and I am not saying at all that the needs of the 2% should overrule the 98%. What I am saying is that, if ALAC as an advisory body wants to take a balanced position it should not ignore issues that are of concern of registrants - privacy, to make an example.
Also, I am not under the impression that the primary concern of the non-contracted parties in the GNSO is to stand up for the registrant, in particular for the individual registrant - but this is in my opinion orthogonal to the question, unless we believe that ALAC should represent all users except the registrants, because they might have a place elsewhere.
Inviato da iPad
> Il giorno 04 set 2018, alle ore 09:37, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> On September 4, 2018 01:35:31 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> While I agree with you that 98% constitutes rough consensus I also believe that Alan was raising a problem that is not just about numbers and percentages but about type of stakeholders.
>> If the 2% represents a different “category” of stakeholders I believe that their needs should be taken into account.
> What is so special about this 2% that justifies such outsized influence? Why should the tail wag the dog?
> If we had 50 reps at the table, one of them could be charged with speaking for this splinter. But with only two reps there, we don't have that luxury. This is ESPECIALLY true as we know that other ICANN constituencies can (and will) forcefully make the case of the 2%.
>> After all, the contracted parties are even less, in pure numbers, than the registrants, nevertheless they have a strong voice in the process.
> Indeed they do. That is a flaw of ICANN's model, through which the inmates have majority rule of the asylum. At-Large cannot fix that, but we also must not condone and intensify the problem by allowing the 2% (who have voice elsewhere) to rule the 98% (who are otherwise voiceless). We should not compound ICANN's design flaws with our own errors of judgment.
> Fully half of the GNSO speaks to the needs and wants of registrants. It really saddens me that some see that as not enough, that any crumbs of additional registrant advocacy that can be squeezed out of At Large must be fought for, even if it comes at the expense of our bylaw-defined role, cohesiveness, and wasted volunteer resources.
> Often the interests of registrants and end-users coincide, but this is not one of these times and our mandate in such instances is unambiguous. At-Large has a core duty to speak for those who, absent our presence, would not be heard at all.
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg