[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Draft collated proposal for Sunrise-related data collection

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
<ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> Can we stop this back and forth on the same issue. A number of folks have told you they do not support a proposal to eliminate sunrise‎. So in mind I think we know what the positions are.  It is not helpful to keep re-hashing the same points. Can we just move on to discussing possible fixes  for the limited gaming issue as a separate topic.

Sometimes I have to wonder if some posts on this mailing list are some
form of parody, or whether they're actually serious. You already know
the answer, given the two posts earlier today:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002304.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002307.html

Arguing about "stopping this back and forth on the same issue", in
light of an identical conversation must be a parody.....

As for the multiple +1s later, some folks might want to re-read the
message from May 5th:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-May/001949.html

"In particular, if you feel compelled to send a “+1” or “Agree”
message please just hit “Reply” and not “Reply All”. That way the
sender of the original message will know of your support without the
other 150-plus members of the WG having to take time away from their
other work.

We actually learned many new things today through the civil discourse,
exposing more cracks in the positions of those supporting sunrises.
These include two registry operator reps openly stated that a sunrise
policy is "moot" or "academic", since they'd implement one even if not
mandated. If anything, that demonstrates movement towards Jeremy's
proposal (indifferent to it being accepted), not away from it.

There's a long history of initial "majority" support for policies at
ICANN evaporating as more data/evidence is collected, and as positions
are more thoroughly scrutinized.

Just 2 quick ones:

1. It was my analysis of the deeply flawed .biz/info/org contracts
(which would have allowed tiered pricing) that got them killed,
despite the father of the internet, Vint Cerf, disagreeing with the
impact of that analysis:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/

That analysis still rings true today, as new gTLDs exploit the
unlimited pricing power that they were wrongly granted in the new gTLD
program.

2. IRTP-B PDP -- https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/irtp-b

In that PDP, I wasn't a member initially, but joined it after they
made a deeply flawed proposal regarding domain transfers. Due to
"group think", they came up with a ridiculous proposal called the
"ETRP", which would have allowed transfers to be undone within 6
months (which would have had enormous impacts on the secondary market
for domains). You can see my first substantial post to that PDP (after
my initial post) at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00301.html

I even openly pointed out the "group think"

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00332.html

I was so sickened at being ignored (despite being right) that I even
left the list:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-b-jun09/msg00425.html

however I continued to press the issue amongst stakeholders, and guess
what?!?!? The proposal was killed! Enough outrage was expressed by the
public (which I helped mobilize) in the comment period:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/index.html

that the ETRP died on the vine. And, in that PDP, I was the *sole*
voice of opposition within that group to their proposal (having joined
it to expressly voice why it was flawed).

Now, I don't give these examples to aggrandize myself, but to point
out the historical broken processes appear to be repeating themselves,
when there are serious contributors to this PDP (not just myself) that
have a long track record of being right, even when it appears they're
in a minority (even a minority of just one). Go see the film "12 Angry
Men" as a more dramatic example.

The way to put forth stronger positions is to actually back them up
with facts and arguments, not just saying essentially "I'm not going
to be convinced by anything you have to say, so don't bother." That's
not consistent with evidence-based policymaking or even appropriate
debating tactics. Indeed, it's a form of a "tell" from those whose
positions are unable to withstand scrutiny, to make that sort of weak
"Please, say no more" statement.

So, here's some simple advice --- try putting yourself in the shoes of
the other person, to see things from their point of view! You might be
in a better position to see the weakness of your own arguments, or the
strength of theirs, and can then make adjustments to try to get a
strong consensus. Folks who've read my posts will note I've bent over
backward to attempt to curb cybersquatting (they're no friend of
mine), via balanced proposals.

Because, at the end of the day, this PDP has to produce reports that
survive wide *public* scrutiny, not just some "majority" that is
participating actively in this group. History has shown us that a weak
report can and will be savaged (it was kind of funny, after the ETRP
was savaged by the public, the remaining PDP members came begging for
my insights, which I graciously provided). [as an aside, don't expect
me to do an "Atlas Shrugged" post in this PDP -- this time, I'm not in
a minority of 1]

I'll conclude by saying to those who are "uncomfortable" by debate --
get used to it! Accept that weak positions and analysis will be
challenged. Rather than attempting to stifle those challenges, come up
with stronger arguments/facts.

Good night.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/