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

Fri Sep 7 01:48:31 UTC 2018

The irony of this argument is that I don’t even buy that shuttering whois is good for registrants either because most of the time THEY are end users as well. I’m registrant. I have like 25 domains or some such but most of the time I’m using the internet to shop, buy tickets, do banking, etc., in other words, behaving as an “end user” or “individual user.” My need for good actors on law enforcement, research, reputational databases, etc. FAR outweights my need to hide my registrations.

So net net, I have been guilty of even make a real distinction. Access to what was formally described as whois data is in the interests of ALL end users, including registrants….because as we have said, they are also end users.
J

From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:37 PM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; Holly Raiche (h.raiche at internode.on.net) <h.raiche at internode.on.net>; cpwg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

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

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:59 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto: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<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:50 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>>
Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>>; 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

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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org><mailto: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>><mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com>%3cmailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Aevanleibovitch 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>><mailto: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<mailto:3cmailto%3Ah.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>><mailto: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<mailto:3cmailto%3Abastiaan.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>><mailto: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<mailto:3cmailto%3Acarlton.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><mailto: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<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<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/cpwg/attachments/20180907/83b6bd6b/attachment-0001.html>