[ALAC] [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 04:50:12 UTC 2014


Thank you, dear Sala.  Muah.

To Alejandro's first question, answer is be quiet and slink away.  Paras 30
& 31 here should inform that action:

http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf

...and the meaning of the reference so ably revealed by Sala.

Period the end.
-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will let Carlton explain the first question that Alejandro wrote.
>
> With respect to the use of Jacob and Esau, it is an expression used when
> describing deception. The story goes that Jacob and Esau were brothers and
> sons of Isaac. In ancient times and in that particular culture, before a
> father would die he would bestow his blessings to the firstborn as that was
> his birthright. Whilst Jacob and Esau were twins, Esau was the older of the
> two and so it was his birthright to succeed, However as Isaac reached old
> age, his sight failed him so he could not see properly. In a successful
> attempt by Jacob to get the blessings of the firstborn after striking a
> deal with his brother over a bowl of soup, Jacob killed an animal and put
> the skin around his hands so that he could appear hairy as his brother Esau
> was hairy and in so doing deceived his father into blessing him. So the
> expression to hear the voice of Jacob but it is the hand of Esau he feels
> is used to refer to the use of "deception".
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <
> apisan at unam.mx> wrote:
>
> > Carlton,
> >
> > what is the action that you conclude should follow?
> >
> > Can you explain the Jacob/Esau reference please?
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > Alejandro Pisanty
> >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> > Facultad de Química UNAM
> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> >
> >
> >
> > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> >
> > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
> > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Desde: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [
> > at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Carlton Samuels [
> > carlton.samuels at gmail.com]
> > Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 21:04
> > Hasta: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide
> > Asunto: [At-Large] Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
> >
> > Colleagues may recall that this writer was part of the original At-Large
> > panel constituted to evaluate and determine whether the ALAC would
> exercise
> > standing and file community objections to a gTLD application.
> >
> > You will also recall that after some time engaging and several
> evaluations,
> > I withdrew from the process, principally because I was challenged to
> > reconcile my disquiet regarding the bases used to identify the offended
> > community in context and the expandable and sometimes indeterminate
> > attributes available for defining a community with standing to raise an
> > objection.
> >
> > So now, the evaluator hired by the ICC to evaluate the objections filed
> has
> > issued his ruling.  See it here:
> >
> >
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1684-6394-en.pdf
> > .
> > Here's the key understanding, as he sees it, of what obtains..
> >
> > "*The formal objection process was created to allow a f**ull and fair
> > consideration of objections based on certain l**imited grounds outside
> > ICANN’s evaluation of applications on t**heir merits*"  - Para 54, Page
> 29
> >
> > He, too, has his troubles settling on a meaning of the term 'community'
> in
> > context. His take...
> >
> > "*......**The word “community” refers not to a place, but to an
> > abstraction: the convergence of a sense of involvement with common
> > interests....Communities of persons united by their interests in how they
> > earn their living may be especially strong, whether they form permanent
> > organisations (like professional associations) or not (like the entire
> > **population
> > segment of retirees).*"  Para 49, Page 27 inter alia
> >
> > He continues, bemoaning his inability to cleanly define a community with
> > standing.....and in the process, pimp slaps the prevailing or predominant
> > At-Large tenet of community....
> >
> > "*.....Communities do not necessarily create institutions. They do not
> > necessarily function as a polity, in the sense of identifying officials
> > formally authorized to act in **their name, represent their interests, or
> > formulate their policies. They may exist without structures of
> > self-governance, such as membership committees which admit **or exclude
> > individuals by reference to more or less well-articulated standards
> > of qualification or conduct**........It follows that communities may
> > include individuals who are more or less **concerned with the welfare of
> > the group as a whole; it may contain cynics as well as *
> > *idealists, speculators as well as altruists. Naturally it may include
> > subgroups or even **individuals whose opinions and preferences are
> sharply
> > at odds with those of the **majority of the community. Unless the
> community
> > has in some constitutional sense **defined itself as excluding
> undesirable
> > individuals, or at least limited their capacity to **make claims to speak
> > as members of the group, someone looking at a community **from the
> outside,
> > and armed only with this broad understanding of what a **“community” may
> > be, has no rules-based criteria for evaluating who does or does not
> > **belong
> > to the community. *" Paras 50 & 51, Page 26-27, inter alia
> >
> > Here's where he ends up....
> >
> > "*....The determination I am now charged with effecting deals.... – with
> > “global Internet communities”. That expression has not, however, been
> given
> > further specific definition. One must therefore proceed on the basis of
> (i)
> > discerning what the relevant rules do not say about “communities” and
> (ii)
> > being attentive to implied constraints derived from principles developed
> by
> > ICANN.*" Para 52, Page 28, inter alia
> >
> > He elides a lot of stuff from the foregoing to the six (6) principles
> upon
> > which the new GTLD program is predicated in Para 55 then delivered this
> > [considered] opinion....
> >
> > "*To the extent that abstract or aspirational principles are defined,
> they
> > are those of a free market (“competition”, “consumer choice”,
> > “differentiation” and “diversity”) and freedom of expression, rather than
> > regulatory constraints arising from a protective (or authoritarian)
> desire
> > to filter “wrong” or “unsound” views, or otherwise restrict access s**o
> as
> > to reserve it to those who are vetted by some type of official bodies...I
> > see no reflection here of* *ALAC’s undisguised bias **against “commercial
> > applicants” who “cannot be trusted to self-police the .health domain
> space
> > and are “more than likely” to place “commercial interests before
> > public **welfare
> > interests”*.......*The Objector’s animadversions against the Applicant
> miss
> > the target;* *profit-seekers **may apply; the public interest is
> evidently
> > intended to be protected by protocols imposed by ICANN in a manner akin
> to
> > that of regulators whose supervision constrains the conduct of for-profit
> > providers of public services generally...*" Paras 56 & 57, Page 31 inter
> > alia
> >
> > Reasonable men and women may well agree to disagree, agreeably or not. I
> > willingly acknowledge the arguments posited by this evaluator are indeed
> > cogent. All in all, this was a bravura performance, worthy of
> > acknowledgement. For in one fell swoop, this gentleman tells the ALAC to
> > piss off - politely, in an 'Englishy' kind of way -, gives a left-handed
> > thumbs up to the regulatory role of ICANN, fingers the PICs as I have
> > always intimated they were .......and comes up roses.
> >
> > He hears the voice of Jacob. But smart fella knows it is the hand of Esau
> > he feels.
> >
> > -Carlton
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Carlton A Samuels
> > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > =============================
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list