Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
Alejandro: Here we go again. You do find it easy to judge....and disapprove. Again, you hopelessly misread, probably because you came in late to an ongoing conversation. Or maybe the nuances of meaning offered by my native English Language is a challenge. [Talking of 'metaphorical flourish', its like me and Spanish. I know two words in a flurry of ten and think I understand it.] Yes, the tone I used was intentional; mocking. I cannot and will not bear your burdens. NO my friend. You libel Sala. An explanation by Sala of the meaning of a term I used cannot be a basis for your wily accusation of her. Sala is absolved. The problems I saw of the objection framework were both STRUCTURAL and PHILOSOPHICAL. And since they were obvious from the beginning, I am of the mind they were left in place for cause. I feel vindicated because the evaluator laid them bare. Pfftt. When I use a word it means what is intended. First of all, plainly, I APPROVE of the evaluator's judgement. If only because it coincides with my initial one! The use of the descriptive 'cogent' was for the ordinary meaning and not cynical. I quoted his writings extensively because my own reading and interpretation of the AGB and after extensive conversations and debates with Committee chair Dev Anand Teelucksingh - who, other than Alan Greenberg is possibly the most thoughtful and best researcher I know in At-Large - I was convinced that: 1. There were serious disconnects in the objection framework offered in the AGB 2. The barrier to entry in the process in form of a fee was intended as a 'chilling effect'; plainly, they were unwanted 3. I doubted the cover of the ALAC as sponsored community objector gave equal protection 4. The process instituted to determine 'community standing' was not fit and MAY NOT be. 4. The PICs were an afterthought, a Wile E. Coyote scheme and in context of an entity who disavows a regulatory function, hardly enforceable on an business I hold those views. Those who have been paying attention know they are mine and honestly developed. Sorry if you disapprove. Bless your heart. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Sala, Carlton,
so, you are accusing the reviewer of cheating? That's pretty strong.
Re actions, I have a different one: "live and learn." Or to move away from the metaphorical flourish, analyze and extract lessons learned.
First, find out in depth what went wrong with this objection and whether ALAC can do better. Spread the learning to the RALOs.
Second, if a pattern emerges that shows deeper problems with the objection process and with the gTLD program, put it in writing and work to modify either or both.
And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [ carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 22:50 Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro CC: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
Thank you, dear Sala. Muah.
To Alejandro's first question, answer is be quiet and slink away. Paras 30 & 31 here should inform that action:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1...
...and the meaning of the reference so ably revealed by Sala.
Period the end. -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
I will let Carlton explain the first question that Alejandro wrote.
With respect to the use of Jacob and Esau, it is an expression used when describing deception. The story goes that Jacob and Esau were brothers and sons of Isaac. In ancient times and in that particular culture, before a father would die he would bestow his blessings to the firstborn as that was his birthright. Whilst Jacob and Esau were twins, Esau was the older of the two and so it was his birthright to succeed, However as Isaac reached old age, his sight failed him so he could not see properly. In a successful attempt by Jacob to get the blessings of the firstborn after striking a deal with his brother over a bowl of soup, Jacob killed an animal and put the skin around his hands so that he could appear hairy as his brother Esau was hairy and in so doing deceived his father into blessing him. So the expression to hear the voice of Jacob but it is the hand of Esau he feels is used to refer to the use of "deception".
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
what is the action that you conclude should follow?
Can you explain the Jacob/Esau reference please?
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
________________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [ carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 21:04 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide Asunto: [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
Colleagues may recall that this writer was part of the original At-Large panel constituted to evaluate and determine whether the ALAC would exercise standing and file community objections to a gTLD application.
You will also recall that after some time engaging and several evaluations, I withdrew from the process, principally because I was challenged to reconcile my disquiet regarding the bases used to identify the offended community in context and the expandable and sometimes indeterminate attributes available for defining a community with standing to raise an objection.
So now, the evaluator hired by the ICC to evaluate the objections filed has issued his ruling. See it here:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1...
. Here's the key understanding, as he sees it, of what obtains..
"*The formal objection process was created to allow a f**ull and fair consideration of objections based on certain l**imited grounds outside ICANN’s evaluation of applications on t**heir merits*" - Para 54, Page 29
He, too, has his troubles settling on a meaning of the term 'community' in context. His take...
"*......**The word “community” refers not to a place, but to an abstraction: the convergence of a sense of involvement with common interests....Communities of persons united by their interests in how they earn their living may be especially strong, whether they form permanent organisations (like professional associations) or not (like the entire **population segment of retirees).*" Para 49, Page 27 inter alia
He continues, bemoaning his inability to cleanly define a community with standing.....and in the process, pimp slaps the prevailing or predominant At-Large tenet of community....
"*.....Communities do not necessarily create institutions. They do not necessarily function as a polity, in the sense of identifying officials formally authorized to act in **their name, represent their interests, or formulate their policies. They may exist without structures of self-governance, such as membership committees which admit **or exclude individuals by reference to more or less well-articulated standards of qualification or conduct**........It follows that communities may include individuals who are more or less **concerned with the welfare of the group as a whole; it may contain cynics as well as * *idealists, speculators as well as altruists. Naturally it may include subgroups or even **individuals whose opinions and preferences are sharply at odds with those of the **majority of the community. Unless the community has in some constitutional sense **defined itself as excluding undesirable individuals, or at least limited their capacity to **make claims to speak as members of the group, someone looking at a community **from the outside, and armed only with this broad understanding of what a **“community” may be, has no rules-based criteria for evaluating who does or does not **belong to the community. *" Paras 50 & 51, Page 26-27, inter alia
Here's where he ends up....
"*....The determination I am now charged with effecting deals.... – with “global Internet communities”. That expression has not, however, been given further specific definition. One must therefore proceed on the basis of (i) discerning what the relevant rules do not say about “communities” and (ii) being attentive to implied constraints derived from principles developed by ICANN.*" Para 52, Page 28, inter alia
He elides a lot of stuff from the foregoing to the six (6) principles upon which the new GTLD program is predicated in Para 55 then delivered this [considered] opinion....
"*To the extent that abstract or aspirational principles are defined, they are those of a free market (“competition”, “consumer choice”, “differentiation” and “diversity”) and freedom of expression, rather than regulatory constraints arising from a protective (or authoritarian) desire to filter “wrong” or “unsound” views, or otherwise restrict access s**o as to reserve it to those who are vetted by some type of official bodies...I see no reflection here of* *ALAC’s undisguised bias **against “commercial applicants” who “cannot be trusted to self-police the .health domain space and are “more than likely” to place “commercial interests before public **welfare interests”*.......*The Objector’s animadversions against the Applicant miss the target;* *profit-seekers **may apply; the public interest is evidently intended to be protected by protocols imposed by ICANN in a manner akin to that of regulators whose supervision constrains the conduct of for-profit providers of public services generally...*" Paras 56 & 57, Page 31 inter alia
Reasonable men and women may well agree to disagree, agreeably or not. I willingly acknowledge the arguments posited by this evaluator are indeed cogent. All in all, this was a bravura performance, worthy of acknowledgement. For in one fell swoop, this gentleman tells the ALAC to piss off - politely, in an 'Englishy' kind of way -, gives a left-handed thumbs up to the regulatory role of ICANN, fingers the PICs as I have always intimated they were .......and comes up roses.
He hears the voice of Jacob. But smart fella knows it is the hand of Esau he feels.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Carlton, my answers inline: On 23/01/2014 15:31, Carlton Samuels wrote:
I quoted his writings extensively because my own reading and interpretation of the AGB and after extensive conversations and debates with Committee chair Dev Anand Teelucksingh - who, other than Alan Greenberg is possibly the most thoughtful and best researcher I know in At-Large - I was convinced that:
1. There were serious disconnects in the objection framework offered in the AGB 2. The barrier to entry in the process in form of a fee was intended as a 'chilling effect'; plainly, they were unwanted 3. I doubted the cover of the ALAC as sponsored community objector gave equal protection 4. The process instituted to determine 'community standing' was not fit and MAY NOT be. 4. The PICs were an afterthought, a Wile E. Coyote scheme and in context of an entity who disavows a regulatory function, hardly enforceable on an business
I cannot contradict you on these points, Carlton. It is clear that the examiner has considered the objection is their strictest form relating them directly to the Applicant Guidebook. But I consider that the ICANN Bylaws overrule the Applicant Guidebook and therefore the overarching theme should have been the Public Interest, which the examiner failed to take into account. That said, this may have not been the mission assigned to it and whilst I do not have the time to spend analysing this in detail (I leave it to our excellent analysts), the ruling has the merit to point out the failings of the Applicant Guidebook in safeguarding the public interest. Having no proof of intent, I cannot comment on whether these failings were wanted or a result of incompetence. Kind regards, Olivier
On 23 January 2014 11:58, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
It is clear that the examiner has considered the objection is their strictest form relating them directly to the Applicant Guidebook. But I consider that the ICANN Bylaws overrule the Applicant Guidebook and therefore the overarching theme should have been the Public Interest, which the examiner failed to take into account.
Ah, but this is ICANN, where the "public interest" is in the eye of the beholder. Every TLD applicant asserts they are acting in the public interest by serving their own. In the absence of special instructions to the adjudicator, ALAC is Just Another Objector ... with no more greater claim to service in the public interest than the applicant. In the ICANN world -- uniquely so within Internet Governance -- the "public interest" and the interests of Internet end-users are two very distinct things which are even allowed to be in conflict. - Evan
participants (3)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond