I have to tell you my friend this one leaves me gobsmacked every time. And, underscores the immorality of the false equivalence.  

Sure, let us accept that the bye-law change was orchestrated by some rube from SoyaBeanField, Nebraska who may be challenged by the ordinary meaning of 'individual internet users" to which the bye-law of title refers. 

And let us concede the term 'individual internet users' may be subject to interpretation.  But you cannot escape context in assessing meaning.

If one knows anything of the domain name system and the domain name market, it should not be a stretch to consider and recognize that purely on these facts, if one chooses to take title to a domain name and become a registrant, the interests of a registrant will likely diverge, even pivot, from that of an individual internet user! 

This has troubled me as long as I have caucused with the At-Large. Yes, we should welcome every opinion in these councils. And yes, I will stand at the barricade to preserve the right for all opinions to contend and even be heard.

But it is a rancid falsehood to ascribe the same value to all of them. 

-Carlton   


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:28 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi all.

I agree with Holly, Carlton and Kan. I am frankly surprised that this debate continues to be litigated. How little has changed after a decade of talk. Two things:
  1. Alan's point that "if registrant needs differ from those of the 4 billion Internet users  who are not registrants, those latter needs take precedence" ought not to be controversial, yet somehow it still is to some. The ICANN Bylaws assign to ALAC the role of representing the interests of those who are impacted by domains yet neither buy nor sell them. While there are those among us who own domains and even a few who sell them, such interests already have representation elsewhere in ICANN through multiple vectors. In the vast majority of instances the needs of domain owners align with those of the billions who would use those domains to access goods and services. Alan's statement, which is consistent with both the Bylaws and past practice, is that on the few occasions when those interests may collide, ALAC sides with those who have no other voice in ICANN. This is nothing new and has no reason to be renegotiated now.

  2. It is neither inconsistent with the GRPR nor mocking its intentions to state accurately that privacy has been demonstrably abused within the world of domains to enable unethical and illegal conduct. It wholly appropriate for At-Large -- in speaking for those who have been scammed and those who wish not to be scammed in the future -- to request that the legitimate need for privacy be accompanied by safeguards against shielding those who cause harm. To me this takes two forms: (a) demand for robust and efficient due process to address such abuse when discovered and (b) accuracy of information so that the result of valid due process reveals useful data. It is reasonable to assert that the unintended consequence of privacy without such public safeguards may be worse than the problems privacy rules seek to fix.
- Evan