SOI Task Force response

[farzaneh badii]

I agree with replacing laughable with a less charged word.
But I wanted to entertain myself so I read the BC statement. Why are they
so emotional about this (chuckle) I don't know what is not clear about the
difference between disclosing identity when engaging and participating in a
public forum that makes policies and preserving individuals and vulnerable
communities privacy when they operate on the Internet. I wanted to do an
analogy but there are so many bad analogies out there that I just stop!

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-soi-tf/2023-April/000227.html

* - Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a
*>*    transparency issue.  That calls for some skepticism.
*>*    - The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants
*>*    simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client
*>*    relationships.  There are myriad reasons – not the least of
which would be
*>*    the fact that disclosure of those being represented could
invite even more
*>*    gaming into the ICANN system.  For example, an attorney
representing a new
*>*    gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with
*>*    that applicant, inviting a competing application.  That’s just
one example.
*>*    - Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that,
*>*    should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose the
*>*    identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working group
*>*    chair.  That, frankly, is preposterous – ICANN is a sieve of information
*>*    leakage in the first place, and – further – such disclosure
puts one or two
*>*    individuals into a decision-making position on that person’s
*>*    participation.  ICANN is not in the business of appointing people who can
*>*    arbitrate others’ participation.
*>*    - Interesting that the NCSG – which is a vociferous proponent of
*>*    privacy – is beating the drum for revealing representation.  They can’t
*>*    have it both ways – protect identities when they want and don’t when they
*>*    find it convenient.
*>

Farzaneh


On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 8:10 PM Olévié A. A Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 @Glenn
> Loughable is hidden something not really clear :-)
>  It's better to avoid such a word.
> My 2 cents.
> Olévié
>
> Le jeu. 6 avr. 2023, 22:22, Glenn Ricart <gricart at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> I would not use the "charged" term "laughable".  I might say that
>> conflating ... and .... can lead to mistaken conclusions.  Or something
>> else less emotionally charged than "laughable."
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 10:47 AM Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The wording looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>> Internet Elder, Internet Ecologist, 416 816-2852
>>> On Apr 6, 2023, at 01:46, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have put together a draft response on the GNSO
>>>> Statement of Interest Task Force (SOI-TF). We need
>>>> to submit our response by tomorrow (Friday 7 April).
>>>> Please feel free to comment or add.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rmJPMhoTWEh37Ewh-ticj7WMgwcQQ7VMZkzIHLlbCVs/edit
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the BC has specifically mentioned us in
>>>> their response, so we feel the need to address that.
>>>>
>>>>  Julf
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230406/95581cbd/attachment.htm>