[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] international law enforcement association resolution regarding domain registration data

Mon Mar 6 16:37:59 UTC 2017

So why don't ICANN strip the identity from the sender from statements to 
a working group? Anonymous statements would be the logical consequence 
of only looking at the argument and not at the source, would it not?

Best,

Volker

Am 06.03.2017 um 17:20 schrieb Andrew Sullivan:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 04:33:02PM +0100, Volker Greimann wrote:
>> the source. If we were to receive a statement from cybercriminals and
>> torrent site operators, our reception of the arguments and content of the
>> message would be colored by the source as well, wouldn't it?
>>
>> I am not asing to discount the message, I am just saying do not seperate the
>> message from the sender.
> I'm extremely uncomfortable with the above premise, and I think it's
> important to make clear why.
>
> One model of ICANN policy making is that it simply balances among
> interests.  The interests are (1) those that show up and (2) those
> that we somehow decide are "legitimate".  The problem with this model
> is that it is deeply political.  The interests who "show up" are the
> ones who can get funding, and there is incentive to try to
> delegitimize some other interest.  There is a basis for interpreting
> ICANN's approach this way, because of the constituency model and the
> way that people identify as part of this or that group.  In this
> model, there is no reason for a given stakeholder or stakeholder group
> should in any way acknowledge or argue for positions outside their
> parochial concern, because if someone else wants that issue to be
> considered he or she should similarly attempt to participate.  One
> advantage of this model is that it is familiar from other kinds of
> political environments: it emphasises the "stakeholder" part of
> multi-stakeholder.
>
> A second model of ICANN policy making is that it attempts to bring in
> as many different kinds of stakeholders as possible, not because these
> are somehow representative of a position (the legitimacy of which is
> to be determined), but because "more eyeballs make all bugs shallow".
> That is, a diversity of views allows maximal exposure of the issues
> with respect to a give policy problem, and so it is better to have
> multiple kinds of viewpoints.  Under this view, everyone should strive
> to ensure that different viewpoints are taken into account, even if it
> is only so as to say that a given view was taken into account but the
> arguments for it were on balance not as strong as alternatives.
> Constituencies under this view are a useful and convenient way to do
> some early filtering, so that people with common sets of interests can
> explore those common interests in depth without everyone in the world
> needing to participate in every discussion.  It is by definition not
> possible to delegitimize a particular interest, though it is possible
> to show that the arguments for that interest are on balance to be
> rejected.  An advantage of this model is that it discourages political
> maneuvers in favour of greater discursive policy discussion: it
> emphasises the "multi" part of multi-stakeholder.
>
> Now, I don't really think that these are either mutually exclusive
> options; neither do I think that we ever get out of either stance
> completely.  But the suggestion that we have to take the source into
> consideration with the argument bothers me greatly.  If the New
> National-Socialist Stalinist Maoist Khmer Rouge and Social Credit
> Party of Canada[1] came along and made an argument that certain kinds of
> personally-identifying information in the RDS had negative effects, I
> would expect us to take that argument seriously regardless of the
> odiousness of the political stripe we found in their ideology.
>
> The position of the Chiefs of Police interest group was that the
> current prevailing policy regime should remain in place, because it is
> convenient for them.  Some of the convenience struck me as possibly
> compelling and some of it less so.  There was literally no new
> information in their statement, however: every single one of those
> arguments is already exposed in the materials we have amassed.  And
> no, I do not think that we should take the position more or less
> seriously because it comes from a law enforcement lobby group -- any
> more than I'd think that if it came from the FBI, the EFF, the
> Regiment of Trademark Fencibles, or the Anti-Sony Collective of Evil
> Genius File Sharers[2].  I'd prefer instead that we look at the
> arguments, not their sources.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> [1] Not an actual political party in Canada.
> [2] Not all of these lobbies are real.

-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.