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

[Evan Leibovitch]

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.

Cheers,
Evan