[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR

Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Hadia at tra.gov.eg
Thu Sep 6 10:27:07 UTC 2018


Dear All,

Just a few thoughts to share on the topic being discussed


·         ALAC  represents all end users interests and we are not to choose between registrants and other end users this is a given.


·         The EPDP team is not tasked to make any definitions we are tasked to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, while complying with the GDPR. To do so we need to ensure that the policy is consistent with the law. So how each stakeholder group wants to define abuse, privacy or security is not within the scope of this group.


·         With regard to uncertain legal interpretations or GDPR constraints the EPDP team could share these questions with ICANN org which in turn can share it with the DPAs or the European Data Protection Board for legal guidance.



Hadia


From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 9:57 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano; Evan Leibovitch
Cc: Holly Raiche; CPWG
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Good thoughts Roberto. Of course, in this particular case, the intolerant minority has MAJORITY representation on the EPDP. Between all of the contracted parties and the NCUC (all three of whom can be pretty intolerant at times) the “majority” are outnumbered considerably.

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:52 PM
To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Hi Evan.
Thanks for your referenced article. It was long reading, but had good points.
However, I found the article uncorrelated to the matter under discussion, that is minority vs majority, because the article only makes the point that "The Most Intolerant Wins”, as stated in the title. All the examples are pointing to cases in which a minority, if intolerant, can win over the majority, but obviously there are other cases (and I believe we all can figure out examples) where the majority is intolerant and wins. The lesson that I learn from the article - and I am willing to admit that this was not the objective of the writer - is that we have the “Dictatorship of the Intolerant” - not necessarily the dictatorship of the minority.
So, this article in realty confirms me of the need of being flexible, i.e. neither intransigent nor intolerant, and open to dialogue and compromise, if we really want to make a change.
Cheers,
Roberto


On 04.09.2018, at 16:58, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com%3cmailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>>> wrote:

Hi Holly,

I'm with Carlton on this.

I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section
12.2(d)(i):

*The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the
activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests individual
Internet users.*

We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions
based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those
positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider
and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater
community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as
advocates, not conciliators.

Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and
Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of
end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does
not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that
is our singular role in ICANN --  and even when we do we're not always
listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but
let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little
"balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made
enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would
eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already
exist.

When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and unreasonable,
even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter gets its way
<https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15>
.

Cheers,
Evan


On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net%3cmailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>> wrote:

Folks

First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that,
this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with
his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his
first language.  Well done Bastiaan.

And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to.

And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended: the issue isn’t
privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security
versus another - both are necessary.

Holly
On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>>>
wrote:


On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com%3cmailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>>
wrote:

Bastiaan:
You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.


I ’seem adept at destroying’?

Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it up
just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept
at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-)

Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll
have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I
completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy
anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One
that still stands btw.


My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your
interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There  is a word
for that I cannot recall at the minute.

Kindly,
-Carlton


Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take
offence here.

-Bastiaan


_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org%3cmailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20180906/96d79e84/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list