[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The message to the community (was Re: Cancellation of RDS PDP WG meetings at ICANN62)

Thu May 10 13:22:04 UTC 2018

Whether or not we were set up to fail is an interesting question.  Every 
single attempt to resolve WHOIS disagreements has failed, in my opinion, 
so I don't think we should ponder the set up too much, although I will 
confess to being curious about whether plan B (the Board imposed 
emergency policy) had been in the minds of Board members and some 
stakeholder groups all along.

The important question that I think we need to examine now is why these 
attempts are failing.  This group has assembled an impressive group of 
experts, who have put in many many hours of work.  We have expert staff 
and experienced leadership.  I for one have agonized about slowing 
things down and insisting on certain caveats, knowing how unpopular my 
views/experience on privacy policy application are, but each expert owes 
it to his/her discipline to present that perspective.  I think the 
problem is the reluctance of many to actually listen to the other 
perspectives with respect, to present facts not opinion, and to have a 
genuine desire to learn and to reach a solution. The ad hominem attacks 
certainly have not helped, and perhaps the leadership could have taken a 
harder line when dealing with an evident reluctance on the part of many 
to actually complete the homework assignments (i.e. read the documents 
presented by the other guys they are arguing with).

I hope the leadership team is thinking hard about how to 
reconstitute/restructure the group.  I certainly am.  Neither the 
emergency policy, nor the expedited PDP can possibly deal with all the 
issues that are as yet unresolved, in my view.  Time will tell, but I 
see no evidence that ICANN leadership including the Board have a bag of 
pixie dust they are about to haul out to make this thing fly .

As to Nathalie's last comment....The GDPR is as a fact.   It will be as 
difficult to apply as any regional treaty that has international or 
extra-territorial implications.  It is based on a sound international 
human rights framework.  Just because jurisdictional conflicts are 
inevitable is no reason not to keep trying.  We would not be in the 
environmental and fishing mess we are currently in if countries had not 
given up on the Law of the Sea as an instrument; fortunately those who 
are fighting human trafficking don't give up when they see lack of 
enforcement in their particular sphere of activity.  There are countless 
examples of failure in international negotiations, over issues that 
really matter for our mutual safety, security, and survival as a 
species.  I don't see why this effort to resolve what is basically a 
disagreement about the mechanisms of using personal data to resolve 
participation in the DNS, human rights, cybersecurity, and trademark 
enforcement in the DNS should be unsolvable, if enough people care about 
reaching an agreement.

Looking forward to further announcements.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-05-10 08:36, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
> Weren't we set up for failure from the start? Whenever there is a 
> conflict of jurisdiction, only States can resolve the issue. If the 
> government of the State of Wallawalla declares its courts have sole 
> jurisdiction over all matters dealing with the abuse of ferrets, 
> unless other States agree to waive jurisdiction of their courts over 
> such matters and adopt procedural guidelines on how to transfer such 
> authority, a unilateral declaration of jurisdiction over ferret 
> matters is inapplicable.
> It wold result in forum shopping, etc.
>
> GDPR is inapplicable as it is written.
>
> Nathalie
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, 9:26:57 PM EDT, Andrew Sullivan 
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I certainly appreciate the notice from the Chairs (and indeed, I have
> not made my travel plans yet).  But I think we are permitting
> formalism to get in the way of plain talk:
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 05:03:41PM -0700, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Whatever happens, it will be up to the Council and the GNSO as a 
> whole to
> > determine the status of the RDS PDP WG going forward.
>
> It seems to me blindingly obvious that the RDS PDP has not come to a
> successful conclusion, but that events mean that we _have_ come to a
> conclusion.  The fact that all these other things are going on and
> that there is all this uncertainty suggests to me that the ICANN
> community would be better served if we simply admitted it and sent
> them that message, loud and clear, before Panama.  There is no hope
> whatever that anything resembling this WG is going to be reconvened to
> solve the same problems.  We ought to state forthrightly that, at
> least under our previous charter, we argued for two years and barely
> made a dent in this topic.
>
> We failed.  We should have the courage to admit it so that the ICANN
> community can take that into account in whatever it tries to do next.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180510/8cc4926e/attachment-0001.html>