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

Thu Sep 6 07:23:58 UTC 2018

Dear Jonathan,

remaining neutral, you mention contracted parties and the NCUC. I have
also heard from exactly these people that the intolerant are Businesses,
the IPC and Governments. So everyone appears to be seeing everyone else
as intolerant.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 05/09/2018 21:56, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180906/57462eaf/attachment.html>