[article] .org price cap complaints more like =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=9Cspam=E2=80=9D_?=says Ombudsman

[Sam Lanfranco]

I support Stephanie here. While we have a lot on our plates, we have to
register a simple and blunt rejection of the logic contained in the
Ombudsperson's comments. There is a certain amount of irony (and dark
humor) in the Ombudsman's position. Organized write in campaigns have a
long and honorable history. Amnesty International has long used them to
champion human rights causes and those wrongly imprisoned around the globe.
The "dark humor" there is that some oppressive regimes simply killed the
person as a way to terminate organized petitions pressing for the release
of the prisoner. Fortunately we are not dealing with such dire consequences
here.
However, the dark humor in the Ombudsperson's position is suggesting that
coordinated responses are spam-like because they are too easy to do. Maybe
the Ombudsperson has a peculiar (Marxist?) labor theory of value, and
believes that if there is not blood, sweat and tears involved in a
submission, it should have less weight. There is a certain bit of irony, if
not more dark humor, in that he is the Ombudsman for ICANN whose mission is
the security and stability of the Internet ecosystem, so that it can
contribute to efficiency and effectiveness in the affairs of humans,
including I might add (the obvious) efficiency in communications. Maybe
each and every one of us at the Montreal ICANN meeting should schedule a
2-minute appointment with the Ombudsperson, attend, and give the same 60
second objection to the position expressed in the article, with no comments
on the price cap. That would be labor and time intensive, and not "too
easy". 
One fear, at least on my part, is that ICANN leans toward an evidence-free
position where the weight of a submission depends not on logic, evidence,
and integrity, but on the financial wealth of those tendering the
submission. That would lead to a peculiar version of multistakeholder
engagement.  
Sam L, NPOC

---- Original Message ----
From: Stephanie Perrin 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [article] .org price cap complaints more like “spam” says
Ombudsman
	I think that the matter merits a response from us.  Civil society
functions in broad coalitions and does a lot of its work through petitions
and sign on campaigns.  To dismiss a form letter is therefore unacceptable
for these reasons; to interpret a signature on a form letter as spam is in
my view at least demonstrating a failure to understand how public campaigns
actually work.  The onus is on us, as users of this technique, to correct
this assertion.
	If our members support this opinion, I will draft up a letter to send to
the Board.  The Ombudsman is of course entirely entitled to his opinion and
response, but we should explain to the Board how we feel about the matter. 
	Let me know by the end of the week, if there is no objection I will draft
up a letter.
	Kind regards, 
	Stephanie Perrin 

	NCSG Chair
  On 2019-09-11 19:23, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
	Thanks Michael, I agree that the optics here are poor - particularly given
this does seem inconsistent with how ICANN has previously treated
coordinated submissions. Back in 2017, when numerous intellectual property
interests were sending in identical, form letters regarding the importance
of maintaining open-ended unaccountable Whois, I didn't see these being
disregarded as being spam submissions. Nor should they have been, as while
the messaging was identical, the sentiments were sincerely held. I hope
that the Ombudsman might reconsider his stance on this matter. Ayden
Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On
Thursday, 12 September 2019 01:13, Michael Karanicolas 
(mailto:mkaranicolas at GMAIL.COM) wrote:   

	Ugh. This is a really bad look for the Ombudsman. These kinds of
coordinated campaigns are absolutely standard practice for civil society.
Open Media, for example, does this all the time in public comment periods,
providing their network with a list of "talking points" and a link, and
encouraging them to submit things on these lines. So long as these are
actual people or organizations that are submitting the comments (as opposed
to bots) - it's 100% legitimate. There's been no indication that the
comments here were automated, or that there was anything fishy about the
organizations submitting the comments. Even putting aside his ultimate
recommendation to dismiss the complaint, this is a very disappointing and
narrow-minded stance for the Ombudsman to take. Best, Michael Karanicolas
Wikimedia Fellow Yale Law School On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:22 PM Ayden
Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com (mailto:icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:   

	Dear all, I am sharing this article for information purposes: org price
cap complaints more like “spam” says Ombudsman
http://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman
(http://domainincite.com/24720-org-price-cap-complaints-more-like-spam-says-ombudsman)
Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190912/3144deec/attachment.htm>