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

[Kris Seeburn]

Chuck

+ 1 

Kris

> On 27 Oct 2017, at 04:09, <consult at cgomes.com> <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg