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

Thu Sep 6 22:37:25 UTC 2018

If ever you get a chance to participate in a Review in the ICANN mold, I
strongly recommend you take the time. All that required reading and
argumentation does assist in concentrating the mind.

My interpretation of the bye-law mandate for the ALAC to '*consider and
provide advice....related to the interests of individual internet users*"
is and remains to *advocate* on behalf of the *individual users*.  Take the
ordinary OED meaning for that word.

We have all decided that the term *'individual internet users*' could be
further unpacked to mean registrants and those who never will register a
domain name. We cannot contest that the latter class would be billions
compared to the tens of thousands of registrants.

As At-large advocates, I'd assume we have permanent interests. When I'm in
a contentious situation with advocates for many interests, I favour the
idea that advances the greatest good to the greatest numbers.

Alliances that progresses my interests come naturally to me. But to the
extent that I advocate interests for public policy *outcomes*, I will
always come down on the side that delivers the greatest good to the
greatest numbers.

This is situational. I have long recognized that in DNS matters, my
objective of the greatest good delivered to the greatest numbers is often
bound to third party interests. I may not sign on to all of their
interests. But if some advance the ones I advocate then I will embrace them.

Striking that balance is what detains me in this argument.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:59 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Yes, yes. Sorry.  I was just using the language of the thread and, in the
> process, distracted everyone from the point. Sigh.  My POINT is that
>
>
>   1.  The Minority are well represented by the Majority on the EPDP
> (registries, registrars, NCUC)
>   2.  We are perhaps the only ones available (with only two people) to
> represent the Majority of end users.
>
> So while it is admirable for us to ALSO represent the minority (ie
> registrants) view because we seek “balance” in our position, it won’t
> result in balance on the EPDP. That’s all.
>
> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:50 AM
> To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>;
> 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
>
> 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:
> 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<mailto:
> evanleibovitch at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:
> h.raiche at internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto: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
> <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com%3cmailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com<
> http://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
> <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net%3cmailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net<
> http://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
> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net
> <http://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
> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com%3cmailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com<
> http://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>
> 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
> 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/f34608f1/attachment-0001.html>