[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS-PDP-WG Looking for blue sky

[consult at cgomes.com]

Regarding: " My personal view is that ICANN could elect to rise to the
occasion, or it can just fight within itself, and the big issues will be
decided elsewhere. "  ICANN = us.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 8:23 AM
To: allison nixon <elsakoo at gmail.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS-PDP-WG Looking for blue sky

Allison,

The short answer to your question is YES. As with many, in fact most, civil
society groups, they cannot afford  to be engaged in ICANN's pdp process,
and while we (I am in ncsg/npoc) cannot speak on their behalf, we are
expected to be sensitive to their situation, and to the situation of all who
are effectively "citizens of the Internet".

That does not mean that we have to take responsibility for protecting their
interests. It just means that we have to strive for a registration regime
that gives them the options to protect their own interests as they see them.
The essence of a multistakeholder process is that participants strive for
policies and practices that protect the broader interests of their
constituencies, while the constituencies operate within that broader context
to protect their special interests as they see fit.

If ICANN is to exhibit "best practice" multistakeholder governance, it has
to rise to the occasion within something like the context I mention in the
previous paragraph. Sadly, from recent history ICANN is falling far short of
that mark, and probably providing fuel for those who see a multistakeholder
approach as flawed and inadequate. ICANN  is an accidental social
experiment. A technical solution to a communications problem (the Internet
Protocol) morphed into the global Internet ecosystem where everybody is, in
some sense, a citizen, where every entity has a presence, and where what
that means in terms of rights and obligations is yet to be sorted out.

My personal view is that ICANN could elect to rise to the occasion, or it
can just fight within itself, and the big issues will be decided elsewhere.
ICANN would then just shrink to just a technical service entity. Whether I
am right or wrong, ICANN is an accidental social experiment, and it is being
watched with a critical eye, both from within its participating stakeholders
and from those concerned with the wider Internet ecosystem.....and it my be
my imagination, but I do hear a clock ticking.

Sam L.

On 10/24/2017 10:57 AM, allison nixon wrote:
> Sam, in relation to the "at risk" groups that you work with. Would you 
> agree that the groups themselves with their special use-cases need to 
> take some responsibility for their own privacy? Don't those groups 
> still need to file taxes and file some paperwork for public corporate 
> directories and property ownership directories in their areas? If 
> those public disclosure rules can be dealt with, then is the current 
> WHOIS an issue that is any more difficult to navigate than the others 
> I mentioned?
>

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg