Brotherman, see my responses inline.

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


On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:40 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Carlton,

I hear you loud and clear, but if we are being realistic, I think the level of representation that exist within the ePDP may be a factor on how far one can push these things. I have heard a couple of times that the numbers don't matter but how loud we  "constructively" scream, well within ICANN, that's probably nothing more than a good motivational speech.
True, numbers do matter.  And yes, they truly matter for one reason you implied; managed outcomes.   

Attempts has been made to get this through via the ePDP without luck
It is what it is because numbers matter. And if you cannot convince enough 'votes' to peel with you then all that is left is the moral high ground. Leaves you with one tool, moral outrage.  We could have acted up, carried on, publish even a mild statement of 'concern'. Exercise our nuclear option; go on record as not endorsing Phase 1 outcome!
and since ALAC practically has a milk teeth on ePDP, I don't think it will be out of order to utilize that which we've always been reminded of as being our role, which is to advice;
When we ceded the moral high ground we effortlessly messaged these were "nice-to- haves". 
hopefully there are still some permanent teeth left in there.
Yeah, but if results matter then we're back in the lane where the Board response is pre-ordained; a shrug of the shoulders and a 'what can I tell ya, we think your gripes have merit but we can hardly go against the consensus position of the WG, can we? Plus  one out of three of your issues still in play. It ain't all that bad!' The end. 

Regards
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, 17:54 Carlton Samuels, <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Thick WHOIS made sense back then - and some of us were savaged for taking that position! - and still does today, if only because if every GTLD operator has the same obligations it is easier to check compliance. 

The distinction between legal and natural persons and why that would matter is, um, well, I am loathe to commit 2 more brain cells to that argument. 

The wave and momentum of national data privacy law and regulations is tacking the EU way. So in the final analysis a geographic distinction has no long term value.

Do we have a new solution to offer anywhere? 

And why does this 'advise the Board request/require' sound so much like we got popped in the mouth in the schoolyard and ran to teacher for justice?

A better posture is to make the arguments we favour sharper and put them on the wire for the WG to see. 

Orchestrate and manufacture consent!

Carlton.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 8:59 am Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Please find attached a draft of the ALAC Advice to the Board related to the EPDP.

Note that the highlighting (inadvertantly missing in the third case) gives two alternative pheasings to be discussed.

Hadia has reviewed it and supports it.

Alan
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg