Agree -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Monday, September 3, 2018 6:18 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Next possible move related to GDPR Oh, and let's not forget that ICANN's governance model means that those who buy and sell domains are already well represented at the policy table. Nobody else speaks purely for those impacted by ICANN decisions without contributing to its finances, so the onus is on At-Large to speak for the otherwise voiceless. It is often raised within ICANN that industry advicates are end users too. I find that position unconvincing, it just becomes another channel for lobbying (or causing diversion from what is otherwise broad consensus). Such blatant "dual-dipping" is but one of the sources of ICANN's own credibility problems. Cheers, Evan

Evan, While I agree with you that 98% constitutes rough consensus I also believe that Alan was raising a problem that is not just about numbers and percentages but about type of stakeholders. If the 2% represents a different “category” of stakeholders I believe that their needs should be taken into account. After all, the contracted parties are even less, in pure numbers, than the registrants, nevertheless they have a strong voice in the process. Cheers, Roberto

On 03.09.2018, at 23:52, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 3:38 PM Alan Greenberg, <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

...

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 ;-) )?

If that is the split, 98 to 2... Given what I originally said, that clearly falls under "rough consensus", if the determination is clear on what the non-registrant end user PoV is.

Consensus does not demand unanimity. Never did. But that balance is pretty overwhelming.

That will not give us much credibility!

...

I disagree. Credibility is based on honesty and sincerity, not dogmatism. The expectation that the global end user community speaks with a monolithic single viewpoint is what isn't credible.

Cheers, Evan _______________________________________________ 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

Evan, I don’t see this issue as black or white and I am not saying at all that the needs of the 2% should overrule the 98%. What I am saying is that, if ALAC as an advisory body wants to take a balanced position it should not ignore issues that are of concern of registrants - privacy, to make an example. Also, I am not under the impression that the primary concern of the non-contracted parties in the GNSO is to stand up for the registrant, in particular for the individual registrant - but this is in my opinion orthogonal to the question, unless we believe that ALAC should represent all users except the registrants, because they might have a place elsewhere. Cheers, Roberto Inviato da iPad

Il giorno 04 set 2018, alle ore 09:37, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> ha scritto:

...

On September 4, 2018 01:35:31 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

While I agree with you that 98% constitutes rough consensus I also believe that Alan was raising a problem that is not just about numbers and percentages but about type of stakeholders. If the 2% represents a different “category” of stakeholders I believe that their needs should be taken into account.

What is so special about this 2% that justifies such outsized influence? Why should the tail wag the dog?

If we had 50 reps at the table, one of them could be charged with speaking for this splinter. But with only two reps there, we don't have that luxury. This is ESPECIALLY true as we know that other ICANN constituencies can (and will) forcefully make the case of the 2%.

...

After all, the contracted parties are even less, in pure numbers, than the registrants, nevertheless they have a strong voice in the process.

Indeed they do. That is a flaw of ICANN's model, through which the inmates have majority rule of the asylum. At-Large cannot fix that, but we also must not condone and intensify the problem by allowing the 2% (who have voice elsewhere) to rule the 98% (who are otherwise voiceless). We should not compound ICANN's design flaws with our own errors of judgment.

Fully half of the GNSO speaks to the needs and wants of registrants. It really saddens me that some see that as not enough, that any crumbs of additional registrant advocacy that can be squeezed out of At Large must be fought for, even if it comes at the expense of our bylaw-defined role, cohesiveness, and wasted volunteer resources.

Often the interests of registrants and end-users coincide, but this is not one of these times and our mandate in such instances is unambiguous. At-Large has a core duty to speak for those who, absent our presence, would not be heard at all.

Cheers, Evan

Hi Tijani, When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that. Cheers, Evan PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary.

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

Le 4 sept. 2018 à 09:54, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> a écrit :

Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.

Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position.

(Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political, religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to that, it just a personal thing)

In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’ interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before, combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone that is what sticks, at least with me.

I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be collected…

-Bastiaan

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 3:54 am Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.

Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position.

(Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political, religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to that, it just a personal thing)

In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’ interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before, combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone that is what sticks, at least with me.

I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be collected…

-Bastiaan

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

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> wrote:

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

...

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 3:54 am Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.

Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position.

(Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political, religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to that, it just a personal thing)

In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’ interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before, combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone that is what sticks, at least with me.

I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be collected…

-Bastiaan

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ 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

I am also standing in the middle. I applaud the following statement from Bastiaan which speaks clearly to avoiding the "us against them" tone. "Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position." Marita On 9/4/2018 7:58 AM, Holly Raiche 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> wrote:

...

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

...

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 3:54 am Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.

Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position.

(Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political, religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to that, it just a personal thing)

In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’ interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before, combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone that is what sticks, at least with me.

I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be collected…

-Bastiaan

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

---

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

Sorry Evan I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one. Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet. I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants. Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <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.

Cheers, Evan

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <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> wrote:

...

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

Hi Jonathan I’m using the term generally. Please don’t think the words apply only to those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to stop it. And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access. So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let’s stay within a broad framework Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t reduce it to law enforcement.

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Sorry Evan

I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.

Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet.

I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants.

Holly

On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <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.

Cheers, Evan

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <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> wrote:

...

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

_______________________________________________ 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

Thanks Jonathan Yes, true. But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why. Under the GDPR, it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I hunt down the bad guys. If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR bounds, then there has to be reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform should have access. Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests so I just wanted to be clear.

From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Hi Jonathan

I’m using the term generally. Please don’t think the words apply only to those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to stop it. And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access.

So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let’s stay within a broad framework

Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t reduce it to law enforcement.

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Sorry Evan

I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.

Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet.

I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants.

Holly

On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <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.

Cheers, Evan

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <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> wrote:

...

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

_______________________________________________ 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

Happy with that. In which case, that is what we put forward as one of the main purposes of ICANN, etc etc - and it’s in the by-laws anyway. The next step is much harder - what hoops do people have to go through to establish that is what they do and that their accessing the information is - in each instance - exactly what they are doing. On 5 Sep 2018, at 1:18 pm, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Trust and Stability of the DNS. Seems simple to justify.

From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:53 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Thanks Jonathan

Yes, true. But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why. Under the GDPR, it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I hunt down the bad guys. If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR bounds, then there has to be reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform should have access.

Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests so I just wanted to be clear.

From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Hi Jonathan

I’m using the term generally. Please don’t think the words apply only to those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to stop it. And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access.

So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let’s stay within a broad framework

Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t reduce it to law enforcement.

From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

Sorry Evan

I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one.

Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet.

I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants.

Holly

On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <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.

Cheers, Evan

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <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> wrote:

...

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <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

_______________________________________________ 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

Content != the DNS -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 05/09/2018, 04:18, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Jonathan Zuck" <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Trust and Stability of the DNS. Seems simple to justify. From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:53 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR Thanks Jonathan Yes, true. But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT 'law enforcement' should have access, then we have to say why. Under the GDPR, it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I hunt down the bad guys. If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR bounds, then there has to be reason why an individual who isn't in uniform should have access. Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term "law enforcement" gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests so I just wanted to be clear. From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>>; cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR Hi Jonathan I'm using the term generally. Please don't think the words apply only to those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to stop it. And I"m sure there would be a very good argument to say that those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access. So let's not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let's stay within a broad framework Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: It's not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and phishing. It's researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational databases and yes, even ip folks because there's a strong correlation between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don't reduce it to law enforcement. From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Cc: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR Sorry Evan I'm with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one. Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet. I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants. Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto: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. > > Cheers, > Evan > > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto: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>> wrote: > > > > >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto: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 > _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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

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>> 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>> 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>> wrote: On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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

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

Yes, yes. Sorry. I was just using the language of the thread and, in the process, distracted everyone from the point. Sigh. My POINT is that 1. The Minority are well represented by the Majority on the EPDP (registries, registrars, NCUC) 2. We are perhaps the only ones available (with only two people) to represent the Majority of end users. So while it is admirable for us to ALSO represent the minority (ie registrants) view because we seek “balance” in our position, it won’t result in balance on the EPDP. That’s all. From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:50 AM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; 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 Exactly Olivier. And I do want At-Large and ALAC to remain far from this language of intolerant which is a value judgement by the way. I learned from my very early age that a value judgement is always wrong. None is intolerant; everybody is defending their own interests, and our interest as At-Large members is the public interest only (no commercial nor political interest). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 6 sept. 2018 à 08:23, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> a écrit : 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<mailto: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<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto: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 <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com%3cmailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<http://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 <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net%3cmailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<http://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 <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<http://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 <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com%3cmailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com<http://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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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

The irony of this argument is that I don’t even buy that shuttering whois is good for registrants either because most of the time THEY are end users as well. I’m registrant. I have like 25 domains or some such but most of the time I’m using the internet to shop, buy tickets, do banking, etc., in other words, behaving as an “end user” or “individual user.” My need for good actors on law enforcement, research, reputational databases, etc. FAR outweights my need to hide my registrations. So net net, I have been guilty of even make a real distinction. Access to what was formally described as whois data is in the interests of ALL end users, including registrants….because as we have said, they are also end users. J From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:37 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Tijani Ben Jemaa <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>; Holly Raiche (h.raiche@internode.on.net) <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR If ever you get a chance to participate in a Review in the ICANN mold, I strongly recommend you take the time. All that required reading and argumentation does assist in concentrating the mind. My interpretation of the bye-law mandate for the ALAC to 'consider and provide advice....related to the interests of individual internet users" is and remains to advocate on behalf of the individual users. Take the ordinary OED meaning for that word. We have all decided that the term 'individual internet users' could be further unpacked to mean registrants and those who never will register a domain name. We cannot contest that the latter class would be billions compared to the tens of thousands of registrants. As At-large advocates, I'd assume we have permanent interests. When I'm in a contentious situation with advocates for many interests, I favour the idea that advances the greatest good to the greatest numbers. Alliances that progresses my interests come naturally to me. But to the extent that I advocate interests for public policy outcomes, I will always come down on the side that delivers the greatest good to the greatest numbers. This is situational. I have long recognized that in DNS matters, my objective of the greatest good delivered to the greatest numbers is often bound to third party interests. I may not sign on to all of their interests. But if some advance the ones I advocate then I will embrace them. Striking that balance is what detains me in this argument. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:59 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Yes, yes. Sorry. I was just using the language of the thread and, in the process, distracted everyone from the point. Sigh. My POINT is that 1. The Minority are well represented by the Majority on the EPDP (registries, registrars, NCUC) 2. We are perhaps the only ones available (with only two people) to represent the Majority of end users. So while it is admirable for us to ALSO represent the minority (ie registrants) view because we seek “balance” in our position, it won’t result in balance on the EPDP. That’s all. From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:50 AM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>>; Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR Exactly Olivier. And I do want At-Large and ALAC to remain far from this language of intolerant which is a value judgement by the way. I learned from my very early age that a value judgement is always wrong. None is intolerant; everybody is defending their own interests, and our interest as At-Large members is the public interest only (no commercial nor political interest). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 6 sept. 2018 à 08:23, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com><mailto:ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>>> a écrit : 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<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com><mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>>> *Cc:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org><mailto:cpwg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>><mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>%3cmailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Aevanleibovitch@gmail.com><http://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<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>><mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>%3cmailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:3cmailto%3Ah.raiche@internode.on.net><http://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<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>><mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net>%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<mailto:3cmailto%3Abastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net><http://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<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>%3cmailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:3cmailto%3Acarlton.samuels@gmail.com><http://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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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

Dear All, So from a practical point of view I would like to ask you what is the one thing in the current temp spec that you would like to absolutely keep and what are the things that do not really matter. Note : I am not asking about specific clauses or terms but I am asking about outcomes. BestHadia    On Friday, September 7, 2018, 11:09:23 AM GMT+2, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote: Carlton,            I may not sign on to all of their interests. But if some advance the ones I advocate then I will embrace them.100% agree, and this is the balance I’m asking for Jonathan It is not about majority and minority. It’s the end users interest that At-Large should defend, and you asked me how. I answered your question in earlier mail, but I will make here more clear: We must protect the users from the cybercriminals and allow third party with legitimate purpose to access the non public data. This is for the interest of all end-users. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: +216 98 330 114            +216 52 385 114----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 6 sept. 2018 à 23:37, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> a écrit : If ever you get a chance to participate in a Review in the ICANN mold, I strongly recommend you take the time. All that required reading and argumentation does assist in concentrating the mind. My interpretation of the bye-law mandate for the ALAC to 'consider and provide advice....related to the interests of individual internet users" is and remains to advocate on behalf of the individual users.  Take the ordinary OED meaning for that word. We have all decided that the term 'individual internet users' could be further unpacked to mean registrants and those who never will register a domain name. We cannot contest that the latter class would be billions compared to the tens of thousands of registrants. As At-large advocates, I'd assume we have permanent interests. When I'm in a contentious situation with advocates for many interests, I favour the idea that advances the greatest good to the greatest numbers. Alliances that progresses my interests come naturally to me. But to the extent that I advocate interests for public policy outcomes, I will always come down on the side that delivers the greatest good to the greatest numbers.  This is situational. I have long recognized that in DNS matters, my objective of the greatest good delivered to the greatest numbers is often bound to third party interests. I may not sign on to all of their interests. But if some advance the ones I advocate then I will embrace them. Striking that balance is what detains me in this argument.   -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:59 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Yes, yes. Sorry.  I was just using the language of the thread and, in the process, distracted everyone from the point. Sigh.  My POINT is that   1.  The Minority are well represented by the Majority on the EPDP (registries, registrars, NCUC)   2.  We are perhaps the only ones available (with only two people) to represent the Majority of end users. So while it is admirable for us to ALSO represent the minority (ie registrants) view because we seek “balance” in our position, it won’t result in balance on the EPDP. That’s all. From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:50 AM To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com>; 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 Exactly Olivier. And I do want At-Large and ALAC to remain far from this language of intolerant which is a value judgement by the way. I learned from my very early age that a value judgement is always wrong. None is intolerant; everybody is defending their own interests, and our interest as At-Large members is the public interest only (no commercial nor political interest). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114             +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 6 sept. 2018 à 08:23, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> a écrit : 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<mailto: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<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto: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 <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com%3cmailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com<http://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 <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net%3cmailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net<http://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 <mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net%3cmailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net<http://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 <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com%3cmailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com<http://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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ 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

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

Le 6 sept. 2018 à 11:27, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> a écrit :

Dear All,

Just a few thoughts to share on the topic being discussed

· ALAC represents all end users interests and we are not to choose between registrants and other end users this is a given.

· The EPDP team is not tasked to make any definitions we are tasked to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, while complying with the GDPR. To do so we need to ensure that the policy is consistent with the law. So how each stakeholder group wants to define abuse, privacy or security is not within the scope of this group.

· With regard to uncertain legal interpretations or GDPR constraints the EPDP team could share these questions with ICANN org which in turn can share it with the DPAs or the European Data Protection Board for legal guidance.

Hadia

From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 9:57 PM To: Roberto Gaetano; Evan Leibovitch Cc: Holly Raiche; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto: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-... <https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15>> .

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

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org%3cmailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

Hello all, first of all, I am very glad to see this flurry of emails on the CPWG about this very topic. Yes, it is a topic that has been resurging every now and then, indeed whenever we have a discussion about WHOIS, and this is what makes the At-Large community different from every other community out there in ICANN. There is no "pro" or "against" privacy in this debate. There is a conflict of needs, all of them being legitimate in their own way. I think that Bastiaan has explained the situation rather well. But I would also like to somehow frame the discussion again: in the current instance of the debate, we have a new element, which is the framework that is caused by the GDPR, promoting stronger privacy protection for Registrants. It is there. We can't even argue this. If Registrars and Registries do NOT follow the GDPR they are practically assured of receiving a penalty, so I can completely understand that, a business holders, they cannot afford this risk. And we have a counter framework that might well be put forward by the United States, which is to have a strong consumer protection for people using Web sites which means a strong means of identification. If you read this proposition, some of it is diametrically opposed to GDPR. So we are somehow in the middle. The question we should be asking ourselves, is whether there is a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate? A solution that provides consumer protection, whilst at the same time complies with GDPR? Kindest regards, Olivier On 04/09/2018 10:54, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:

Unless I am mistaken I do not think we have to make a ‘decision that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users’.

Following this thread I am probably somewhat in the middle here: I definitely agree with the call for ‘balance’ but also think we have to be pragmatic and therefor need to establish what this required ’balance’ means in practical terms in order to help our EPDP members and alternates form a position.

(Fyi I am somewhat allergic to statements like ‘we as end users advocates are morally bound to prioritize the interests of the majority’. Personally I automatically tend to go for the underdog position, I am not going to elaborate on how minority groups everywhere suffer from apparent political, religious and/or commercial majority viewpoints. No need to respond to that, it just a personal thing)

In this case I don’t think are fundamentally disagreeing though, I think it is more a matter of tone. It does seem as if we are continuously emphasising that certain third parties should have access to non-public WHOIS data in the public interest, as if that is the only concern and it is bad enough that GDPR and the like make gated access even a requirement in the first place. Like, who cares about privacy, that is just a ‘minority’ interest. The false security versus privacy paradigma I referred to before, combined with a ‘there are many more users than registrants’ rationale. And I know we hat is not what we think and/or are saying, but in terms of tone that is what sticks, at least with me.

I am of the opinion that a more balanced approach is indeed necessary. In practical terms I think we can do so by on the one hand seeing to it that ICANN becomes compliant with applicable data protection legislation like the GDPR, which in my opinion is not ‘a given’ looking at the current Temp Spec, advise from the EDPB, and what certain stakeholders within the EPDP are striving for. Of course I also am convinced that third party access based on legitimate interests are a no brainer. But even if that is the case, we need to see to it that WHOIS data are ‘collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes’ as art 5.1 (b) of the GDPR says. If that is not taken care of properly then we might be looking at a future scenario where e.g. LEAs with certified access to non-public WHOIS data will not be able to get all the data required as they’ll no longer be collected…

-Bastiaan

...

On 4 Sep 2018, at 10:02, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

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

Thananswer is both yes an no. First, you should remove the "complies with GDPR" part. That is a given it is not an option. Period. But exactly WHAT will be deemed to comply with GDPR is the real question. And that is what the discussion is really about. *I* want to make information that will be useful to cybersecurity folks and those who create reputation serves and spam filters as easy for them to access as possible. Other want to erect high and difficult barriers. Those barriers may come in the form of the detailed rational for every bit of information, or whether the process is automated or manual. "consumer protection" is a public good issue that is a given. But HOW it is achieved is the difficult part. Alan At 04/09/2018 11:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

So we are somehow in the middle. The question we should be asking ourselves, is whether there is a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate? A solution that provides consumer protection, whilst at the same time complies with GDPR?

Me again Agree with Alan and a reminder - we are NOT talking about whether the solution complies with the GDPR. It MUST. End story. Next - Alan is right - there is plenty of room in the GDPR to flesh out what is meant by law enforcement. But the GDPR is also very clear - there should be no access to personal data for the public generally. So the middle ground within which this debate has to be held: Within those parameters, we have to work through who gets access under the law enforcement rubric - how do we fashion that definition, and then, access must only be for legitimate reasons. So again - we need to work through those definitions. So really, the debate is within that framework. Holly On 5 Sep 2018, at 2:38 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Thananswer is both yes an no.

First, you should remove the "complies with GDPR" part. That is a given it is not an option. Period. But exactly WHAT will be deemed to comply with GDPR is the real question. And that is what the discussion is really about.

*I* want to make information that will be useful to cybersecurity folks and those who create reputation serves and spam filters as easy for them to access as possible. Other want to erect high and difficult barriers. Those barriers may come in the form of the detailed rational for every bit of information, or whether the process is automated or manual.

"consumer protection" is a public good issue that is a given. But HOW it is achieved is the difficult part.

Alan

At 04/09/2018 11:51 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

...

So we are somehow in the middle. The question we should be asking ourselves, is whether there is a solution that satisfies both sides of the debate? A solution that provides consumer protection, whilst at the same time complies with GDPR?

---

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

Evan, Just for me to understand better, can you make an example where you see a direct conflict between the interests of the registrants and of the non-registrant users? I am not sure that there are cases in which we need to make a hard choice and cannot try for a compromise. Cheers, Roberto Inviato da iPad

Il giorno 04 set 2018, alle ore 10:03, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> ha scritto:

Hi Tijani,

When nuance is possible, I have faith in our people to understand and work with that. Ideally we want both domain owners and domain users to be free from abuse. However, when there are decisions that will favour either the protection of registrants OR the protection of end users, our scale is balanced 98 to 2. Such hard choices - such as the very definitions of "harm" or "abuse"- will not be avoidable and we cannot shirk from that.

Cheers, Evan

PS: I am not sure that AFNIC/.fr is a good example, since well-run ccTLDs with residency requirements are typically not sources of significant end-user abuse. Were ICANN run like AFNIC or CIRA it's likely that gTLDs might not be such sources of abuse and this debate would be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ 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

Evan, You are completely wrong on the End-users perspective. The End-Users would want to easy and full access to the registrant info. That is only when they want to know who sent an e-mail or who owns the web site. -- Bill On Tue, September 4, 2018 7:11 am, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Hi Roberto,

As just one example:

Registrants will want the definition of abuse defined as narrowly as possible, to perhaps only activity that is a major crime (ie, a felony in the US) in the country where the domain is registered. This would allow the bad-actor registrants to go location-shopping for the most lax jurisdictions, a practise already clearly in evidence even for registries seeking tax havens.

End-users will want a broader definition that will extend to what is illegal or regulated in the country where the abuse takes place (ie, phishing, election tampering etc) takes place.

Generally registrants will want access to data as minimal and difficult as possible, in ways that will not only fail to curtail current levels of abuse but could inflame them. End users will want broader levels of accountability than registrants want to give, and may want to enable investigations of abuse to be conducted by organisations not strictly defined as law-enforcement (human rights groups, for example).

As I've said, usually the interests of registrants and end users are aligned. We have to be able to deal with those rare-but-real instances where they are not. Yes, compromise is possible, but only if first there is a strong and clear advocate for (and at very least understanding of!) registrant accountability. No other community or constituency except At-Large even has an interest to serve as that advocate, and most other parts of ICANN (most certainly registrants) are already pushing for little or zero accountability.

Cheers, Evan _______________________________________________ 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

Thanks Evan May I make a practical example. I am a registrant, as I have several domain names for different purposes. I am fed up with periodic scam attempts by folks who imply that my registration is about to expire - looking at the fine prints, what they propose is instead to be registered for privileged position in the search engines. In any case, there was only one way for them to get the details of my registration, and that is accessing the WhoIs. And I believe not to be the only one who is targeted by these scams. I could not care less about how broad is the definition of abuse is, because, like the vast majority of domain names holders, I do not use the web site for illegal purposes. The important thing, to me, is that we have a well-defined rule so that we have predictable behaviour - like in the offline world, where we do know what is legal and what is illegal and we have properly defined authorities who take full responsibility for the law enforcement actions that they perform. In short, I am indeed in favour of registrant accountability - in much the same way I am in favour of accountability in the offline world for all those who can affect others with their actions. I am therefore all for a tiered access where my personal information can be seen by the folks that are authorised to see it, but only by them. Of course, that needs a definition of the criteria that make a party “authorised” - like the way it happens in the offline world. Moreover, I would like to have the “authorised” parties to be fully accountable for the potential damage they cause by improper use of the information. Personally, I do not see how this approach would limit the rights of the non-registrant users. Moreover, I am not only a registrant, but also a user, who is subject to all sort of other scams as any other non-registrant user. As user, I personally seldom check the WhoIs, and when I do it is because I already suspect that the email I am getting or the options on the web site I am looking are not properly legal. That is, I have first to be aware - or at least suspicious - about the potential problem. In simple words, I do not need to constantly check the WhoIs every time I navigate. Therefore, I am perfectly happy if this WhoIs checking is performed for me by “authorised” parties, I would even consider this as a service, in much the same way I appreciate the law enforcement “services” in the offline world. In summary, I seriously doubt that there is no compromise solution possible - once we avoid, as you have rightfully pointed out - the “unreasonable” actors. However, to deal with this matter by predefining lines of principle and using stereotypes for the registrants and the users does not help in reducing the “unreasonableness”. Just my 2c. Cheers, Roberto On 04.09.2018, at 16:11, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Roberto, As just one example: Registrants will want the definition of abuse defined as narrowly as possible, to perhaps only activity that is a major crime (ie, a felony in the US) in the country where the domain is registered. This would allow the bad-actor registrants to go location-shopping for the most lax jurisdictions, a practise already clearly in evidence even for registries seeking tax havens. End-users will want a broader definition that will extend to what is illegal or regulated in the country where the abuse takes place (ie, phishing, election tampering etc) takes place. Generally registrants will want access to data as minimal and difficult as possible, in ways that will not only fail to curtail current levels of abuse but could inflame them. End users will want broader levels of accountability than registrants want to give, and may want to enable investigations of abuse to be conducted by organisations not strictly defined as law-enforcement (human rights groups, for example). As I've said, usually the interests of registrants and end users are aligned. We have to be able to deal with those rare-but-real instances where they are not. Yes, compromise is possible, but only if first there is a strong and clear advocate for (and at very least understanding of!) registrant accountability. No other community or constituency except At-Large even has an interest to serve as that advocate, and most other parts of ICANN (most certainly registrants) are already pushing for little or zero accountability. Cheers, Evan

Tijani: I completely agree with your articulation of what the At-large position should be and how that position could be instituted. I am especially pleased with the recognition that protection of end users can and is often instantiated by way of third party action. Excellent! -Carlton On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 2:01 am Tijani BEN JEMAA, <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> wrote:

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:

- the protection of end-users from harmful use of DNS - the protection of their data from harmful usage.

This can be reached through:

- the collection of the necessary data (not more than the necessary) for the registration and for any necessary protection of the DNS from the criminals - Access to the non public data when necessary by third party with legitimate purpose.

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