Dear Jonathan, remaining neutral, you mention contracted parties and the NCUC. I have also heard from exactly these people that the intolerant are Businesses, the IPC and Governments. So everyone appears to be seeing everyone else as intolerant. Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/09/2018 21:56, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
Good thoughts Roberto. Of course, in this particular case, the intolerant minority has MAJORITY representation on the EPDP. Between all of the contracted parties and the NCUC (all three of whom can be pretty intolerant at times) the “majority” are outnumbered considerably.
*From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Roberto Gaetano *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:52 PM *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Cc:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR
Hi Evan. Thanks for your referenced article. It was long reading, but had good points. However, I found the article uncorrelated to the matter under discussion, that is minority vs majority, because the article only makes the point that "The Most Intolerant Wins”, as stated in the title. All the examples are pointing to cases in which a minority, if intolerant, can win over the majority, but obviously there are other cases (and I believe we all can figure out examples) where the majority is intolerant and wins. The lesson that I learn from the article - and I am willing to admit that this was not the objective of the writer - is that we have the “Dictatorship of the Intolerant” - not necessarily the dictatorship of the minority. So, this article in realty confirms me of the need of being flexible, i.e. neither intransigent nor intolerant, and open to dialogue and compromise, if we really want to make a change. Cheers, Roberto
On 04.09.2018, at 16:58, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com%3cmailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Hi Holly,
I'm with Carlton on this.
I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section 12.2(d)(i):
*The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests individual Internet users.*
We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as advocates, not conciliators.
Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that is our singular role in ICANN -- and even when we do we're not always listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already exist.
When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter gets its way <https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-...> .
Cheers, Evan
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net%3cmailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>> wrote:
Folks
First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that, this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his first language. Well done Bastiaan.
And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to.
And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended: the issue isn’t privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security versus another - both are necessary.
Holly On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>>> wrote:
On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com%3cmailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Bastiaan: You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy.
I ’seem adept at destroying’?
Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-)
Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One that still stands btw.
My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There is a word for that I cannot recall at the minute.
Kindly, -Carlton
Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take offence here.
-Bastiaan