[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Legal basis vs. lawful

[Theo Geurts]

I like this heretic idea.

Theo


On 13-2-2018 17:36, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> With the risk of being branded a heretic, or traitor, and burned at 
> the stake, I would like to suggest a radical idea here. It starts from 
> the observation that ICANN will be unable to come up with a 
> sustainable workable solution here. This PDP-WG is going slow not 
> because of conflicting stakeholder interests within its 
> constituencies. It is going slow because at this level there is no 
> tractable solution.
>
> My heretical idea is to take a page from how the International Labour 
> Organization (ILO) approaches such global problems (e.g. labour at 
> sea). The idea starts with the fact that the solution to this problem 
> lies with the Registrar’s dealing collectively with their own national 
> governments and working out a multilateral agreement on the boundaries 
> between lawful and unlawful, and between legal and illegal, that allow 
> them to operate globally under a compatible, if not common, set of 
> data privacy and protection regulations.
>
> Within the context of the ILO’s more restrictive multi-stakeholder 
> process, where stakeholders include industry, government, and 
> organized labor, the ILO policy development process works up proposed 
> solutions that are then feed into multilateral deliberations. The ILO 
> operates more like a “Think Tank” in the search for multi-lateral 
> solutions to global labor problems, solutions to be adopted by its 
> member states in multilateral negotiations with each other and 
> endorsed by and accepted by its industry and organized labor 
> stakeholders.
>
> This approach would toss the work on a solution to where that work 
> belongs, outside ICANN and in negotiations between nation states who 
> set the data privacy and security regulations and the Registrars who 
> must observe them. Neither of those impacts on ICANN’s core remit. 
> ICANN could function more like a “Think Tank” expressing a broader 
> multistakeholder view of the issues and proposed solutions. ICANN’s 
> contracts would be easier to write, since they would focus on the 
> stability and security of the domain name system, in a global and 
> multilingual setting.
>
> This would also terminate the “shadow dance” and non-productive 
> struggle between the constituency and stakeholder groups within ICANN 
> with, and against, the roles of GAC and Registrars within the ICANN 
> policy development process. CAG members could go home and tell their 
> respective countries to organize to discuss data privacy and security 
> policy with the Registrar’s. ICANN could better deploy its (probably) 
> shrinking revenue stream and act as a “friend of the discussions”, or 
> offer a venue for those discussions, while protecting its own remit.
>
> Lastly, this might free up some ICANN resources, and Registrar 
> attention, to the distributed ledger technologies (DLTs: e.g. 
> blockchain) that are likely to radically change domain name 
> registration and transfer soon. That will likely have significant 
> negative impact on both Registrar and ICANN revenues. Registrar's can 
> go for revenues from more registration services. Not sure what ICANN 
> can do, other than cut costs.
>
> Lastly, if I am to burn at the stake, please use only wood, it is a 
> renewable resource and forests recycle the carbon. I worry about 
> climate change. Also, you could not do it in Puerto Rico, I won't be 
> there. Also, either pick a cold climate for collateral warmth, or 
> bring hot dogs.
>
> Sam L.
>