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* =============================
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
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
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...)
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
And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text. [Sala: I would not call it religious text as it is historical :) Some historians say that it is the root of the current Palestinian -Israeli conflict. It is basic discourse in International Relations. The use of the expression can be likened to the use of expressions such as "chilling" to mean "relaxing". There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc. ]
Sala, allow me to state for the record that I feel severe disrespect for many and in many planes in your comment. I will not dwell on it for now and try to go back to the objectives of this discussion list. Please just respond whether you believe that the panelist in the ALAC .health objection deliberately cheated. 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: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 23:13 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text. [Sala: I would not call it religious text as it is historical :) Some historians say that it is the root of the current Palestinian -Israeli conflict. It is basic discourse in International Relations. The use of the expression can be likened to the use of expressions such as "chilling" to mean "relaxing". There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc. ]
Alejandro, Firstly allow me to extend my sincere apologies as it is not and was not my intention to cause you grief or to show disrespect. I was merely spurting an opinion and I apologise if that opinion made you feel that way. With respect to the question on whether I believe the panelist was deliberately cheated, I must confess that the "jury is still out" on that one. I would have to read and go through the documentation before commenting, even though I had made comments in the past on the wiki where it came to .health applications. However, I know Carlton and trust his judgment and ethics. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Sala,
allow me to state for the record that I feel severe disrespect for many and in many planes in your comment. I will not dwell on it for now and try to go back to the objectives of this discussion list.
Please just respond whether you believe that the panelist in the ALAC .health objection deliberately cheated.
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:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [ salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com] *Enviado el:* miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 23:13 *Hasta:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
*CC:* At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text.
[Sala: I would not call it religious text as it is historical :) Some historians say that it is the root of the current Palestinian -Israeli conflict. It is basic discourse in International Relations. The use of the expression can be likened to the use of expressions such as "chilling" to mean "relaxing". There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc. ]
On 23 January 2014 00:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc.
Well said. +1 My own analysis of the situation is that the ALAC was "set up to fail", through creation of an objection process that appears outwardly to consider the public interest, but finds ways within the culture and the minutiae to maintain the status quo and keep us silenced. Having the Board empower the ALAC to advance objections, while also enabling the adjudicator to dismiss us based on lack of standing, can now be seen in hindsight to have been a hopeless venture. It swallowed hundreds of person-hours into a good-faith effort that was doomed to fail BY DESIGN. This is not the first instance of such a occurrence. I would now also categorize the gTLD Applicant Support program in the same manner. To the extent that these processes deceived members of the At-Large community to make massive personal investments into a path that utterly failed us, I might agree that the term "cheated" (or at least "fooled") was indeed appropriate. Now, hindsight is fine, but is useless if it does not offer us any lessons. Going forward, I see the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) regime following this same path of futility that we have seen before. After initially supporting the concept of PICs, now that I see how they are to be implemented I come to follow Carlton's sage references to their not being worth a "warm bucket of spit" (Sorry, Alejandro), and will refrain from further work on them as being an utter waste of time. - Evan
Evan, so let's itemize this: 1. if the ALAC is going to have the opinion that the panelist cheated floating around it better prepare for a visit to the Ombudsman. If the accusation is going to stand it has to be carried through seriously; if not, it is libel and the panelist is entitled to go to the Ombudsman to clear his name. 2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users. 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: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [evanleibovitch@gmail.com] en nombre de Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 23:42 Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC On 23 January 2014 00:13, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>> wrote: There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc. Well said. +1 My own analysis of the situation is that the ALAC was "set up to fail", through creation of an objection process that appears outwardly to consider the public interest, but finds ways within the culture and the minutiae to maintain the status quo and keep us silenced. Having the Board empower the ALAC to advance objections, while also enabling the adjudicator to dismiss us based on lack of standing, can now be seen in hindsight to have been a hopeless venture. It swallowed hundreds of person-hours into a good-faith effort that was doomed to fail BY DESIGN. This is not the first instance of such a occurrence. I would now also categorize the gTLD Applicant Support program in the same manner. To the extent that these processes deceived members of the At-Large community to make massive personal investments into a path that utterly failed us, I might agree that the term "cheated" (or at least "fooled") was indeed appropriate. Now, hindsight is fine, but is useless if it does not offer us any lessons. Going forward, I see the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) regime following this same path of futility that we have seen before. After initially supporting the concept of PICs, now that I see how they are to be implemented I come to follow Carlton's sage references to their not being worth a "warm bucket of spit" (Sorry, Alejandro), and will refrain from further work on them as being an utter waste of time. - Evan
On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx>wrote:
Evan,
so let's itemize this:
1. if the ALAC is going to have the opinion that the panelist cheated floating around it better prepare for a visit to the Ombudsman.
I'm still not understanding how you are caught up on this premise. So let me be extremely clear. I am not for a moment accusing any adjudicator of cheating. In fact, I'm myself quite certain that did not happen, and that the panelists were performing their instructions properly. There is an argument to be made that the *processes* in place "cheated" (I prefer the less-charged term "fooled") At-Large community members into spending effort on making objections that could be deemed irrelevant. If there was deception, we must accept some blame for believing that the objection process could do more than it was designed to do. There are perhaps more lessons learned by us than by ICANN from this experience. Especially since, as I said, it has already happened to us before in the Applicant Support program. 2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is
now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
Uh.... you mean like this<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+Public+In...> ? The perception of PICs being completely useless is currently only a personal one, shared by by myself and Carlton and some others. I am unaware of how widely spread the view is held. I am happy to engage ALAC members, RALOs and individual members of the community on the issue. - Evan
Talking of 'cultural sensitivity' and being 'discriminate', two stories from my life. Years ago I worked for a German company in the United States. My then supervisor was a Texan. Time came for review and promotion - a VP position was - open. I ran the most successful and profitable unit. I was the darling of the contracting office of the federal agency we did most of our business; they especially liked my writing style. So he denied me the promotion because of 2 reasons, he said; I was kinda young and my writing was 'too literate' for senior management. In his words I needed to write for an 8th Grade audience, the level he thought corporate communications should be pitched. A lot of them boasted 'advanced degrees'. Second one. Years ago I was sent to the Sloan School of Management to be trained in corporate strategy. In a course on regulatory frameworks one of the professors, an Argentinian, made references several times to Peronism. I challenged him on one specific point. He was VERY surprised, moreso from the direction it came. I still remember him fondly for giving me this adage, accredited to Sullivan.. 'form ever follows function'. -CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
And, let's try to show the cultural sensitivity we all demand by limiting the references to specific bodies of religious text.
[Sala: I would not call it religious text as it is historical :) Some historians say that it is the root of the current Palestinian -Israeli conflict. It is basic discourse in International Relations. The use of the expression can be likened to the use of expressions such as "chilling" to mean "relaxing". There is no such thing as plain English as it continues to evolve. However, when someone uses an expression that others may not be familiar with, we simply inquire. In fact when we live in a global diverse context, we are all the more richer when we learn about "others'" systems and cultures etc. ] _______________________________________________ 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...)
I generally agree with Alejandro (minus accusation of cheating), especially on the need for analysis and drawing of lessons learned to benefit follow up and future At-Large action. A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation. The review ideally should include the sub groups that worked on the criteria for objections as well as the development of arguments/substantiation. Best regards, Rinalia
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order. I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs? I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do. The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm>, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that: *We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P ) The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were - Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question... *Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? * The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string. So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot. But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"? If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value. - Evan
Evan, The history is appreciated. It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even "rebooting" the new gTLD program. ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its point of view in the interest of end users. Best regards, Rinalia On Jan 23, 2014 3:48 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order.
I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs?
I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do.
The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm>, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that:
*We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P )
The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were
- Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't
So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question...
*Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? *
The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string.
So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot.
But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"?
If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value.
- Evan
On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.
and then... On 23 January 2014 03:31, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
It seems to me that a review of this process (as with past reviews of "failed" or unsatisfactory initiatives from the point of view of the At-Large) would fuel arguments/making a case for improving or even "rebooting" the new gTLD program.
ICANN may not have listened to all of the At-Large advice/input in the past, but that should not stop the At-Large or the ALAC from presenting its point of view in the interest of end users.
I can't disagree. But it's not for lack of trying. In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community. Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change. - Evan
Dear Evan, On 23/01/2014 10:01, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community.
Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change.
At the time, the assertions you made were not fully supported by documentary evidence of intent and result so we were probably quite cautious with any allegations. With time, and as processed in the AG are being implemented, it is becoming clearer that the Applicant Guidebook contains failings and flaws that do not serve the public interest. At the time, the very concept of "public interest" was being challenged, if you remember. Now of course, all of these events and rulings are providing us with very valuable feedback for the next round of applications. If ICANN really is serious about the public interest, they will need to analyse the rulings and find out what went wrong. I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws) The ALAC asked for the possibility to file objections and after much hard work, it was given that chance and provided with a gun and ammunition. But was the ammunition all blanks? Kind regards, Olivier
Olivier, thanks for this summary and additonal arguments. The opportunity to work forward with lessons learned from evidence seems ripe. It could be in the benefit of the ALAC's image as well. 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 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] Enviado el: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 11:17 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide CC: ALAC Working List Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC Dear Evan, On 23/01/2014 10:01, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the past when I tried to get ALAC to convey deep concerns about the state of the gTLD program -- concerns that called for radical change to improve the public interest component of the expansion -- I got shot down by my own community.
Have a look at this statement I drafted in 2011<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=31164161>that never made it for ALAC consideration, let alone a vote. Specifically, read the comments that together (IMO) induce a chilling effect on calls for anything more than superficial change.
At the time, the assertions you made were not fully supported by documentary evidence of intent and result so we were probably quite cautious with any allegations. With time, and as processed in the AG are being implemented, it is becoming clearer that the Applicant Guidebook contains failings and flaws that do not serve the public interest. At the time, the very concept of "public interest" was being challenged, if you remember. Now of course, all of these events and rulings are providing us with very valuable feedback for the next round of applications. If ICANN really is serious about the public interest, they will need to analyse the rulings and find out what went wrong. I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws) The ALAC asked for the possibility to file objections and after much hard work, it was given that chance and provided with a gun and ammunition. But was the ammunition all blanks? Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ 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
On 01/23/2014 09:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition.
Let me respond to that particular point rather than the previous focus of this thread. There may well be not one community but rather multiple communities. And people may move between these communities from instant-to-instant depending on what they are doing at that instant. I have observed that over the last few years that there has been a significant shift in the way that users perceive this thing we all call "the internet" (with or without a capital 'I'). For many of us who have been around for a while we see the internet as a system that moves IP packets from computer interface with an IP address to another computer interface with an IP address. We are the packet-heads. But for many people who arrived more recently the perception of the net is of a bag of applications. We packet heads tend to be very concerned about end-to-end principles and neutrality of packet flows. The latter community may focus more on matters of openness, fairness, portability, and reliability of those applications without much regard to the underlying plumbing. (And one might consider that the interests of those who use applications are somewhat different than those who create and deploy applications.) I would note that to the latter community, IP addresses and domain names may be submerging to become hidden machinery and are being replaced by URL/URI based names or application specific names [such as Facebook logins.] I believe that this shift in naming/addressing will eventually significantly alter our internet governance needs. The interests of these groups are one of those Venn diagrams with overlapping circles - there is an area of mutual concern but also large areas where each group has its own concern. I am far from suggesting that these groups form different "stakeholders" - that is because I abhor the concept of top-down pre-defined groups of interest called "stakeholders". However, I do feel that we could gain a bit of clarity if we were begin to recognize that the word "internet" has different meanings to different people and that to best understand opinions we need to comprehend the context from which those opinions arose. My sense is that we will find that as a result opinions that seem in opposition, if the context is understood, might actually be opinions that are in alignment, or at least not in conflict. --karl--
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws)
The ICC decision has been rendered according to the AGB's objection rules. Since ICANN-invented objection procedure is a quasi-arbitration proceeding, I cannot see the ICC-appointed adjudicator had any other choice but to follow the objection rules with the limited discretion power. Yes, it is not unarguable if we do wish to examine the decision line by line, such as on delineated community and ALAC's standing. But what's the point of doing this? There is no way to appeal within the objection procedure. ALAC cannot request ICC to retry the case or revise the decision. Then, At-Large "community" (not defined legally-:) and ALAC may wish to consider how to move to next step. Olivier referred to ICANN Bylaws, so we may come back to ICANN "ecosystem" to seek any possible "remedy". Option 1: ALAC may file reconsideration request to ICANN Board, though it is far from clear whether Board would "reconsider"/review the decision made by its designated dispute service provider in the objection proceeding. After that, there could another file for independent review. Actually, many new gTLD applicants that are unhappy with the decisions made through objection proceeding have already petitioned to Board. Would the Board take the risk of reopening so many cases? This is exactly the backfire of outsourcing the decision-making power to dispute resolution service providers [ALAC made the statement back to Mexico ALS I 2009]. Now the disputes are coming back to ICANN. I would really want to know how the appeal or retrial be handled within ICANN? Option 2: ALAC could wait to see how ICANN restructure its appeal mechanism according to the Final Report of ATRT 2, Rec.9. That would take quite a long time and may only work for "next" round of new gTLD indeed. Hong For those celebrating Lunar New Year, Happy the Year of Horse! ______________________________________________
Dear Evan: History absolves only if one's been paying attention. So thanks for saving me the trouble of writing another long treatise....and using words that come to my head in a stream of consciousness that might have to be explained. You've just gone and remind me why I have to add you to the list of excellent researchers - and thinkers - in the At-Large. Not to bounce the rubble. But the facts will show I was the first on these lists denouncing the objection process then, both philosophically and as a jerry-built contrivance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order.
I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs?
I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do.
The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group< https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm
, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that:
*We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P )
The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were
- Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't
So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question...
*Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? *
The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string.
So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew< https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot.
But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"?
If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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...)
Good evening: I am still working my way through the ICC document, so will defer detailed comments. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that unless ICANN recognises At Large (and other Civil Society participants) on a par with the Registry/Registrar interest, then decisions will probably not be in the 'public interest'. The more we see such unbalanced decisions, the greater will be the push-back from the GAC, who will argue that the governments are evidently, even regrettably, the only custodians of the public interest. Which is only a step away from governmental control of the MS process. A case in point: The European Commission has adumbrated a number of Internet Principles, including the following: <<COMPACT principles: an Internet of Civic responsibilities, One unfragmented resource governed via Multi-stakeholder approach to Promote democracy and Human Rights, based on a sound technological Architecture that engenders Confidence and facilitates a Transparent governance.>> To be sure, having a sole professor from Miami empowered to reject an objection from the principal public interest stakeholder, does not come within my concept of an Internet of Civic responsibilities. Just a thought CW On 23 Jan 2014, at 08:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 23 January 2014 01:15, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>wrote:
A review of the process would be useful. For example, recommendations could be made on whether the ICC panel should include more than 1 person and whether some kind of briefing on the context of ICANN, its ecosystem and processes should be incorporated as part of the panel preparation.
Perhaps a little history is in order.
I would note that ALAC was never happy with having the ICC as adjudicators in the first place, or even having an objection process at all. If ICANN did not listen to us when the process was first started, what confidence exists that it would listen to a review that recommends change when it did not listen to our original designs?
I am now reminded about the original purpose of the objection process, and in retrospect realize that it has accomplished exactly what it was originally intended to do.
The objection procedure is an outgrowth of the GNSO "Rec 6" Working Group<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm>, which was trying to devise a way for groups to object to "offensive" strings (.nazi was the example raised most frequently). The ALAC was quite clear at the time in its analysis of the objection process. The communiqué from ATLAS #1 in Mexico City -- in which all ALSs participated and agreed unanimously, and at which Alejandro was a keynote speaker -- stated that:
*We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of
objections based on morality **and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of **comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.*
Despite this, ICANN still created an objection process -- but as a concession, allowed ALAC the ability to object. (Little did we know at the time that this ability would be useless because, while we could object we could not be assured standing to object :-P )
The anticipated glut of profane TLD applications never occurred, and the expected murmur against the three sex-related applications was quickly brushed aside. So most of the original point of the objection process quickly became moot. What then occupied the objection process were
- Objections on trademark grounds - The ability for a community to complain that a TLD that claimed to represent them really didn't
So it was no longer about "what strings were unacceptable" but rather "who should control this string", a very contentious issue within ICANN and still a source of friction between ICANN and its GAC. The community objection has since been used in religious (.islam), geographical (.patagonia) and other grounds. In this context, At-Large participation in objection to .health does indeed raise a legitimate question...
*Does At-Large really care which of the existing applicants runs .health? *
The adjudicator said it's not our complaint to make, and in some ways I'm not sure I disagree. ALAC never really asked for the right to object in this way anyhow. And given that PICs are useless and ultimately unenforceable, we can't use them to judge which of the applicants would be a "better" custodian of the string.
So, in this situation, what is ALAC's role? Since the string ".health" is not obscene, our objections amount to wanting a say in which applicant controls the string. Had the World Health Organization -- which had applied in the past for .health in the past but withdrew<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-A-Transmittal-Form.htm>-- applied this time as a community gTLD, it would have prevailed over the non-community applications and the objections would be moot.
But that didn't happen. In its absence, do we have the right to say that "if the WHO can't have it, nobody can"?
If we want to say "the allocation of domain names must serve the public interest", that philosophy demands FAR FAR more than lame objection processes and even lamer PICs. But it would also demand almost a complete reboot of the gTLD process and of ICANN itself. Given where we are, the objection process probably did the right thing and got out of the way. It's up to the public to either use or shun the .health TLD -- by whoever gets it -- based on its accumulated trust and value.
- Evan _______________________________________________ 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
On 23/01/2014 18:33, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that unless ICANN recognises At Large (and other Civil Society participants) on a par with the Registry/Registrar interest, then decisions will probably not be in the 'public interest'. The more we see such unbalanced decisions, the greater will be the push-back from the GAC, who will argue that the governments are evidently, even regrettably, the only custodians of the public interest. Which is only a step away from governmental control of the MS process.
Bingo. But just remember who pays the bills. Kind regards, Olivier (speaking for myself only)
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
Carlton, I object the ad-hominem, chest-pounding, bullying and outright distortions and lies in your posting. Let it rest for the record since even you have somewhat bowed to the more rational approach which Evan picked up, and since you appear to have backtracked from or clarified what seemed a serious accusation against an absent third party. 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: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 08:31 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide CC: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Again, I see and hear you. Can I make use of an acronym you used in another space, only this time with a different spin perhaps? RTMFM. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
I object the ad-hominem, chest-pounding, bullying and outright distortions and lies in your posting. Let it rest for the record since even you have somewhat bowed to the more rational approach which Evan picked up, and since you appear to have backtracked from or clarified what seemed a serious accusation against an absent third party.
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: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 08:31 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide CC: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] 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
_______________________________________________ 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
2014/1/23 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Again, I see and hear you. Can I make use of an acronym you used in another space, only this time with a different spin perhaps? RTMFM.
Dear Carlton, In the last LACRALO teleconference you talked about engagement and participation and about the people who speak English and who not. This answer to Alejandro is exactly the contrary to your speech in that teleconference. Please if you want more people who are committed and involved, and participating in At-Large activities and interests, take care your expressions and respect the cultural diversity. Also if you are one of the few people who know more about gTLD and its processes and objections, please teach us humility. I always appreciate your teaching. Best Regards, Fatima P.S. I don't have intention to discuss with you about that. The main topic of this thread is more important than answer me.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Carlton,
I object the ad-hominem, chest-pounding, bullying and outright distortions and lies in your posting. Let it rest for the record since even you have somewhat bowed to the more rational approach which Evan picked up, and since you appear to have backtracked from or clarified what seemed a serious accusation against an absent third party.
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: jueves, 23 de enero de 2014 08:31 Hasta: At-Large Worldwide CC: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] 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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.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
On 2014-01-23, at 9:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws)
I’m not up to speed enough to comment on ALAC’s role in the gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure, but I do have something I’d like to say about the broader issue of community in context. I’m gong to begin with a quote from Edward Snowden as an accurate expression of a first principle of community development, "Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.” It is wrong headed to come into a community as an outsider, expecting that you are going to be of help. A community development activist should merely intend to inform the process of a community’s decision-making differently. On November 8, 2013, following the IGF in Bali, Fadi Chehadé hosted a webinar on Internet governance titled, “Conversation opportunity with ICANN Senior Executives.” He wanted to discuss recent Internet governance developments - specifically the background and context of the I-Star discussions that led to the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, the plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil in March 2014, and ICANN’s partnership role in those efforts. In the webinar chat box, I asked him a question. “Since a thing becomes what you call it, was ICANN's adoption of ISOC's expression, ‘Internet Governance ecosystem’ a conscious attempt to re-frame the global language of debate? Nation states don't strategize in terms of ecosystems.” In his answer, Chehadé zoned in on the part of the phrase he felt was most critical to ICANN’s strategy and the success of the Montevideo Statement – the defense of the multistakeholder model. After a pause, he replied, “we believe the term is the right term. It encompasses the stakeholders, those who need to involved in Internet governance, better than other terms.” But there are consequences that flow from framing terminology on governance by reference to ecosystems. To me, his answer indicates that ICANN is not as particularly aware of them as ISOC seems to be. I am not opposing the multistakeholder model so much as noting that the definition of community and community online has a far greater significance than is being recognized. To briefly summarize a difficult and complex argument about the nature of change in contexts, the principles of interdependence and self-organization structuring the governance of complex adaptive systems like communities and the Internet Governance ecology are different from the mechanistic principles structuring a conventional view of governance. As many on this list are aware, the Community Informatics “community,” in its efforts to gain representation in the Brazil meeting process, recently took a significant step into occupying that ecology zone. In their Community Informatics Declaration, “An Internet for the Common Good - Engagement, Empowerment, and Justice for All,” they took a step towards reframing the Internet Governance ecology discussion by bringing community back into it. The Declaration includes the following two statements: 1. “We aspire to an Internet effectively owned and controlled by the communities that use it and to Internet ownership that evolves through communities federated regionally, nationally and globally. The Internet's role as a community asset, a public good and a local community utility is more important than its role as a site for profit-making or as a global artifact. The access layer and the higher layers of applications and content should be community owned and controlled in a way that supports a rich ecology of commercial enterprises subject to and serving community and public interests.” 2. “A just and equitable Internet provides … Recognition that the local is a fundamental building block of all information and communications and the "global" is a "federation of locals." However Community Informatics only makes it part way with those two statements. Their action to seek representation is not within the framework or context of those two statements, and means that they are acquiescing to a zero-sum game. Even if the Community Informatics Community wins its battle to be represented, the troika of government, business and civil society that frames the understanding of governance now will still be framing the spaces where the federation of locals struggles to breath. But I do see that phrase, “the global is a federation of locals,” as the beginnings of a recognition that community online as a complex adaptive system and Internet Governance ecology are two facets of the gem of an emerging shift in epistemology. In summary, ALAC’s role as an intervener in the ICANN community of communities is a community development role. What’s an ALAC for if not to inform the way that ICANN understands the role of community in the way the world works now – as a federation of locals?
Dear Graham, thank you for your very interesting and informative post. Honing in on your paragraph: "But I do see that phrase, “the global is a federation of locals,” as the beginnings of a recognition that community online as a complex adaptive system and Internet Governance ecology are two facets of the gem of an emerging shift in epistemology." Recognition is one thing. Legal recognition is another - and here's the question(s) I'd like to ask to our friends who might know: with the ICC making its decision on "community", is there a legal recognition of a "community" under the process by which Community Objections are judged - but according to the definition which you have outlined? Might we be seeing new world processes judged under old world rules? Kind regards, Olivier On 23/01/2014 22:27, Garth Graham wrote:
On 2014-01-23, at 9:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of definition. Referring to the ICANN Bylaws, the ALAC's scope should be defined in a way that the "community' element would be accepted by legal rulings. Yet the ICC examiner's ruling is that the Community needs to be clearly delineated (as the AG asks) in such a narrow sense that the ALAC really does not represent anything or anyone. I am troubled that this interpretation is *exactly* the interpretation of the applicants who responded to the ALAC's objection by challenging the ALAC itself. (whether this is ethical or not, I don't blame them for it, it is entirely fair game - play the system you're given and make use of its flaws) I’m not up to speed enough to comment on ALAC’s role in the gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure, but I do have something I’d like to say about the broader issue of community in context. I’m gong to begin with a quote from Edward Snowden as an accurate expression of a first principle of community development, "Because, remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.” It is wrong headed to come into a community as an outsider, expecting that you are going to be of help. A community development activist should merely intend to inform the process of a community’s decision-making differently.
On November 8, 2013, following the IGF in Bali, Fadi Chehadé hosted a webinar on Internet governance titled, “Conversation opportunity with ICANN Senior Executives.” He wanted to discuss recent Internet governance developments - specifically the background and context of the I-Star discussions that led to the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, the plans for a broader Internet stakeholder meeting in Brazil in March 2014, and ICANN’s partnership role in those efforts. In the webinar chat box, I asked him a question. “Since a thing becomes what you call it, was ICANN's adoption of ISOC's expression, ‘Internet Governance ecosystem’ a conscious attempt to re-frame the global language of debate? Nation states don't strategize in terms of ecosystems.”
In his answer, Chehadé zoned in on the part of the phrase he felt was most critical to ICANN’s strategy and the success of the Montevideo Statement – the defense of the multistakeholder model. After a pause, he replied, “we believe the term is the right term. It encompasses the stakeholders, those who need to involved in Internet governance, better than other terms.” But there are consequences that flow from framing terminology on governance by reference to ecosystems. To me, his answer indicates that ICANN is not as particularly aware of them as ISOC seems to be.
I am not opposing the multistakeholder model so much as noting that the definition of community and community online has a far greater significance than is being recognized. To briefly summarize a difficult and complex argument about the nature of change in contexts, the principles of interdependence and self-organization structuring the governance of complex adaptive systems like communities and the Internet Governance ecology are different from the mechanistic principles structuring a conventional view of governance.
As many on this list are aware, the Community Informatics “community,” in its efforts to gain representation in the Brazil meeting process, recently took a significant step into occupying that ecology zone. In their Community Informatics Declaration, “An Internet for the Common Good - Engagement, Empowerment, and Justice for All,” they took a step towards reframing the Internet Governance ecology discussion by bringing community back into it. The Declaration includes the following two statements:
1. “We aspire to an Internet effectively owned and controlled by the communities that use it and to Internet ownership that evolves through communities federated regionally, nationally and globally. The Internet's role as a community asset, a public good and a local community utility is more important than its role as a site for profit-making or as a global artifact. The access layer and the higher layers of applications and content should be community owned and controlled in a way that supports a rich ecology of commercial enterprises subject to and serving community and public interests.”
2. “A just and equitable Internet provides … Recognition that the local is a fundamental building block of all information and communications and the "global" is a "federation of locals."
However Community Informatics only makes it part way with those two statements. Their action to seek representation is not within the framework or context of those two statements, and means that they are acquiescing to a zero-sum game. Even if the Community Informatics Community wins its battle to be represented, the troika of government, business and civil society that frames the understanding of governance now will still be framing the spaces where the federation of locals struggles to breath.
But I do see that phrase, “the global is a federation of locals,” as the beginnings of a recognition that community online as a complex adaptive system and Internet Governance ecology are two facets of the gem of an emerging shift in epistemology. In summary, ALAC’s role as an intervener in the ICANN community of communities is a community development role. What’s an ALAC for if not to inform the way that ICANN understands the role of community in the way the world works now – as a federation of locals?
_______________________________________________ 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
Olivier, On "Might we be seeing new world processes judged under old world rules?": This is evident and has been so for many years. Technology development and adoption for ICT have always moved faster than legal adaptation. I personally have seen it since the 1990s. The question is how to get "new world" rules that can deal with "new world" processes. This is a topic worth discussing in ICANN in a larger context as well as specific to the changes that the At-Large may want to see in the implementation of the new gTLD program. Best regards, Rinalia
participants (11)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatima Cambronero -
Garth Graham -
Hong Xue -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro