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

Thu Sep 6 09:50:27 UTC 2018

Exactly Olivier.
And I do want At-Large and ALAC to remain far from this language of intolerant which is a value judgement by the way. I learned from my very early age that a value judgement is always wrong. None is intolerant; everybody is defending their own interests, and our interest as At-Large members is the public interest only (no commercial nor political interest).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Le 6 sept. 2018 à 08:23, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> a écrit :
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> 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/cpwg/attachments/20180906/873aeba1/attachment-0001.html>