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

Thu May 10 17:05:05 UTC 2018

agree that we need a much stronger spirit of clear and concise
communication, constructive disagreement, and focus on the common goal.

my fear is that some on this list will read these recent posts and say
"yes, if a few people on the 'other side' could be more thoughtful and
constructive we might actually get something done" without taking the time
to look in the mirror.

clearly there is going to have to be a different structure to get people to
buy back into this process.  the fatigue factor is exceedingly high.

as to 'reading what others write or submit' - I wish we had the time.
There is simply way too much content to effectively digest for everyone
here who I'm sure are all very busy with their day jobs.  Solving this
somehow has to be part of any new model.  Maybe the EWG was a better model
(I wasn't part of it, but they seemed to actually get stuff done)

we are now at a point where the ICANN Board is making Whois policy for all
of us.  in the end it is up to us to re-empower the Community on this
critical issue.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> Very well said, Stephanie. +1.
>
> —Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 10 May 2018 3:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> 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> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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/20180510/06d26e4b/attachment-0001.html>