My dear friends,

Speaking about percentage (98% - 2%) and (0;000000) is to say that At-Large must take a position for a part (called majority) against the other part (called minority). My take is absolutely different.
Our duty is to defend the public interest, means security of the end users and the best conditions for their utilisation of Internet.
Our position should be to ensure:

This can be reached through:

I find there is an exaggeration of the risk that is frightening some of our members pushing towards a non balanced position.
For the record, the CEO of AFNIC (dot fr registry) announced in the Africa Internet Summit 2018 that AFRIC is not publishing the registrant data since a while, and that they give access only on request, and yet, we didn’t hear of any problem with the dot fr domains so far.

So, again, we don’t have to be extremist for any side. We should have a balanced position (thank you Greg) supporting the data collection and access as necessary to prevent criminals from harming the end users.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
            +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  
Le 3 sept. 2018 à 20:37, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :

Evan, that is fine for a report, but it is less clear what that means for participation in a process such as the edpd.

Let us hypothesize that there are 4 billion users and 2% of them are gTLD registrants (80,000,000). Does that mean that Hadia and I should push strongly for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals to have good access most of the time, but for 2% of the time we strongly support those who want to minimize their access because they do not believe that there is sufficient justification to infringe on registrant privacy (ie the "privacy fetishists  ;-) )?

That will not give us much credibility!

Remember, it is not a case of nit providing privacy for those who are granted those rights under GDPR or similar legislation. That is a given!

Alan

At 03/09/2018 01:35 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In previous policy activity (IIRC it was with the Red Cross / IOC CCWG) the
group I was in had similar challenges. So in the final report issues and
positions were broken down this way:

1) Consensus (rough rather than unanimity)
2) Strong support but significant opposition
3) Minority position
4) Divergence without clear direction

It's not unreasonable to do this, recognizing both majority and minority
views. It might help to also readers to identify if opposition or minority
views are held by identifiable subgroups (ie, members of At-Large who are
also registrants or associated with contracted parties, or from a
particular geographical region).

Consensus is great, but if unavailable ought not to be replaced with
tyranny of the majority. We owe our community the honesty to recognize
diversity, not just in the makeup of our leadership but also in the makeup
of our positions.

PS: I want to thank Greg for adding the phrase "privacy fetishists" to my
ICANN lexicon. It's a more useful phrase than it should be.

___________________
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
@evanleibovitch/@el56

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

_______________________________________________
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