[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Alejandro Pisanty apisanty at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 22:57:03 UTC 2018


Alejandro Pisanty

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Karl,
> My personal opinion is that the thorough explanation that you give about
> an individual carrying different hats is exactly the explanation why the
> individual vote will not work. That will oblige the individual to make a
> synthesis of the different needs, opinions and contributions he/she has and
> summarise this into one single vote, reducing the multiplicity of shades,
> colors and sounds to one single statement. We will lose the palette to
> reduce this to one single position or opinion that will summarise what is a
> variety of interest into what is the major factor.
> Time has passed but some might remember the change from the
> constituency-based GNSO structure to the stakeholder-group-based one. My
> argument, times and again, was that even one large company like IBM (I use
> this example because I happen to have worked there for quite a long time)
> cannot synthesise opinions and contributions to the policy development in
> one single statement or vote. The legal department might have some ideas,
> the marketing others, the developers others again, and so on. We are
> missing the opportunity to take advantage of this plurality of
> contributions if we remain stuck in the “old” constituency system that is
> resistant to change because it is prisoner of the liturgy of the vote.
> This is the essence of the problem, and if I understand correctly the
> essence of our disagreement. I reject a system by which everything is
> reduced to a vote, obliging the synthesis to be made at a local level by
> what would be a variety of contributions that will be prevented from having
> room for discussion.
> I am a participant to the ICANN world with at least two hats: one as Chair
> of the Board of a DNS Registry and one as long standing champion for user
> participation (I am also a registrant, an occasional participant to
> protocol definition, and more, but all this to a minor extent). I have
> perfectly clear what is the interest of PIR and what is in the interest of
> an individual user, and I want to be able to have a structure where, being
> member of two different stakeholder group, I can participate and contribute
> in both and not be obliged to make a choice or a vote silencing one part of
> my complex personal ecosystem. Personally, I believe that (as I said at the
> moment of the GNSO Review) if we want to change we need to transition from
> a state of mind that is hostage to the obsession of the power of the vote
> into a state of mind where what is important is the force of the ideas and
> the value of the contributions - even contradictory. A global, equal,
> multi-stakeholder (GEMS) system is, in my opinion, the only way to achieve
> that. If there are other new systems, I am ready to discuss the matter, but
> the return to the old way of reducing everything to a vote is not an
> alternative that is appealing to me.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> On 16.07.2018, at 21:18, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> Roberto: As you know I've been in opposition to the "stakeholder" model of
> governance since before ICANN was created.  And as many foresaw way back
> then, certain "stakeholder" groups have become rather more powerful than
> others to the degree that one can fairly argue that ICANN is a
> regulatory/governance body that has been captured by those who it purports
> to regulate.
> Let us not forget that when ICANN was created promises were made that a
> majority of the seats on the board of directors would be chosen by the
> public.  That promise remains unfulfilled.  The community of internet users
> ought to have a loud and commanding voice in ICANN yet the stakeholder
> model has left the community of internet users with little more than an
> easily ignored whisper.
> One of the things that amuses me, or concerns me, is that stakeholder
> thinking tend to pre-conceive what a given person or thing might be
> interested in - in other words, it ordains, without ever consulting the
> person involved, where a person's "stake" lays.  That kind of
> top-down-imposition is, well, not very bottom-up.
> Let's look at my own case.  Which "stakeholder" pigeon hole box should I
> be stuffed into?  Or, should I be allowed to operated as several
> "stakeholders" and thus (unfairly) multiply my voice?
>   - I am an individual
>   - I own for profit business corporations (both as a founder or as a
> shareholder.)
>   - I am a member of public-interest groups.
>   - I live in a country (and citizen of two.)
>   - I and my corporations register domain names.
>   - I and my corporations have trademarks, copyrights, patents and other
> intellectual property.
>   - I and my corporations have public IP address space (allocated from Jon
> Postel, not by the RIRs.)
>   - I am an attorney who is involved in intellectual property matters.
>   - I have written full internet standards that continue wide use on a
> daily basis.
>   - I have property (partial ownership) interests in domain name
> registries and registrars of ICANN granted TLDs.
> I am hardly unique in this way.  Every person is a bundle of interests
> that are often at odds with one another.  It ought to be up to each
> individual to reconcile these interests, to formulate a vote based on a
> self-made evaluation of which personal interest is more important and ought
> to prevail.  Stakeholderism deprives people of the right to reconcile their
> interests; stakeholderism imposes an externally pre-made decision onto that
> person about what are that person's most important concerns.
> Stuffing me into one stakeholder box or another the organization (or
> whoever is creating that taxonomy) is a Procrustean act that arbitrarily
> pre-decides which of my interests best express my views.
> Stakeholderism, like Procrustes, chops off our arms and stretches our legs
> in order to make each of us fit onto whatever iron bed the organization
> feels is most appropriate.
> (For those of you who wonder about "Procrustean" - here's the wikipedia
> page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes )
> I suggest that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human
> being.   And as a consequence, the only thing that should have a countable
> vote in matters of internet governance are individual human beings.
> Anything else, corporations, domain name owners, intellectual property
> warriors, etc ought to have no voting authority - but will, of course,
> retain the power to articulate arguments to try to convince individual
> people to use their vote in certain ways.
>     --karl--
> On 7/16/18 8:28 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> It is of course a risk that the multi-stakeholder model be tilted towards
> the interests of one part of the stakeholders - this is why, incidentally,
> Fadi was talking about *global* *equal* multi-stakeholder (“GEMS") model.
> That there is a potential corruption of the model is no good reason for
> rejecting it, in particular in lack of a better system. So I would argue
> that the way to go is to make sure that the voice of the different
> stakeholders compose with the requirement of being “global” (meaning all
> have a chance to get to the table) and “equal” (meaning all have the same
> voice).
> In practice, civil society, because of the inherent limitations about
> financial power, should be subsidised to participate, and civil society
> itself has to make sure that it avoids infiltration of lobbyists among its
> rank and file.
> Cheers,
> R
> On 16.07.2018, at 00:05, bzs at theworld.com wrote:
> On July 16, 2018 at 01:48 6.Internet at gmail.com(Sivasubramanian M) wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 12:16 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>    Multistakeholderism is open to all -- like the Ritz Hotel.
> ( Understand that it is an anology that isn't perfect). Going by this
> anology,
> it merely requires a simple, very simple fix:  Reserve a third of the
> hotel by
> unconditional funding to the stakeholder group that can't afford it, and to
> anyone relatively less privileges even from within even the wealthier
> stakeholder groups. Then we will find the elusive balance.
> I was thinking of how it exists, specifically ICANN, rather than some
> hypothetical implementation.
> The problem is that there is no tie-in (GAC possibly excepted but they
> are advisory) between those who participate and those who are affected
> by the various policy development processes.
> Yes in theory anyone, even the poorest internet user, could simply buy
> themselves plane tickets and hotel rooms etc and participate in the
> meetings.
> Given the actual way it's organized one would likely have to do that
> three times per year for a few years to rise to any level of
> participation beyond open mikes.
> But it's open to anyone! Much like the Ritz Hotel.
> It's no accident that multistakeholderism has been referred to as
> system which is "of, by, and for the lobbyists"*.
> In a nutshell get rid of anything remotely resembling popularly
> elected voting members (even indirectly) and just let the big
> registries, registrars, and others with financial interests be the
> stakeholders and do all the policy development and approval.
> Yes one can identify the occasional exception to that.
> * That point was essentially on the wikipedia page for
> multistakeholderism under "Criticisms" but disappeared about a year or
> so ago.
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_
> model&diff=768793583&oldid=750897618
>    Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto,
>    J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in
>    multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become
>    legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a
>    democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence
>    that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder
>    situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who
>    would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil
>    society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all
>    public elections and not only write the laws but pass them,
>    enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration
>    that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the
>    court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum
>    requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force
>    inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a
>    coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be
>    lobbyists in a democratic system."{{Citation needed|date=March
>    2014}}
> --
>        -Barry Shein
> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at TheWorld.com             |
> http://www.TheWorld.com <http://www.theworld.com/>
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD       | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
> _______________________________________________
> 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 listAt-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     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,
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180716/c3ac81e7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list