[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
6.Internet at gmail.com
Wed Jul 18 20:39:01 UTC 2018
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 3:21 PM Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet at gmail.com>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:18 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>> I think I understand what you are saying well enough and appreciate it.
>> My concern is: By what mechanism would this current system be reformed?
Current system needs to improve from within. By a range of measures,
patiently, with a Master Plan that is comprehensive, not in disconnected
bits and pieces that get swallowed up.
>> If, as not only I have alluded to, it suffers from industry capture
>> what mechanism would improve that?
Cross community attention to bring about a balance. The task at hand is to
elevate the organization.
>> As I said the only mechanism I can think of is altruism which isn't
>> generally reliable tho possible. Again, there are quite a few very
>> fair-minded individuals involved.
Altruism exists to a greater degree than meets the eye. There is more
goodness in ICANN than visible. There are committed participants, some of
them somewhat inert, but there are many who would take a stand.
>> One could say I just argued myself into a corner.
>> If no mechanism exists or is likely then why discuss it
We discuss to find answers ...
> AL HARRISON
> Do you know what we’re doing here?
> We’re trying to put a man in space, sir.
> AL HARRISON
> What I’m asking you..what I’m asking
> everyone one in that room, all my geniuses, is to look beyond the numbers.
> To look around them. Through them. For
> answers to questions we don’t even know to ask. Math that doesn’t yet
> from Hidden Figures - 5/9/2016 - Shooting Draft:
>> Perhaps the only hope is taking to the barricades, or seeking some
>> other external force majeur. Neither are particularly appealing.
Not necessarily not appealing. Depends on who or what the force majeur is
and how detatched the assistance is.
>> On July 18, 2018 at 00:05 6.internet at gmail.com (sivasubramanian
>> muthusamy) wrote:
>> > Dear Barry,
>> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
>> > From: Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet at gmail.com>
>> > >He calls experts and civil society as lobbyists? Civil Society
>> is Civil
>> > >Society.
>> > I'm not sure it's useful to pick at wording in a quote unless it
>> > really discredits the point being made but yes civil society
>> > lobbyists, certainly in the US.
>> > Does anyone doubt, for example, that in the US the Roman Catholic
>> > Church doesn't lobby against abortion, or Planned Parenthood for
>> > status quo of the same issue? And many other organization also of
>> > course.
>> > I'm not sure if you're trying to say such groups shouldn't be
>> > considered part of "Civil Society", or you're saying they are but
>> > don't lobby?
>> > Yes, they do.
>> > Reading you note perhaps you're just interpreting "lobbyist" as a
>> > perjorative which it's not, at least not in the US.
>> > I must admit, to some extent, but pejorative is too strong. There are
>> > differences here. The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a
>> > (individual or firm) that deploys more than proportionate resources and
>> > influences in the corridors of the legislative assembly to bring about
>> an undue
>> > advantage to its principals. In the US, lobbying is probably
>> acknowledged and
>> > its influences factored in, which is probably why it is an accepted
>> > (To be fair, in other countries influences are exerted less visibly,
>> that is
>> > beyond the scope of this thread).
>> > What I said about lobbying in ICANN was a bit too strong. Having
>> admitted that,
>> > this wasn't to imply that that a certain stakeholder or an entire group
>> > shouldn't forcefully present its position around the table. Around the
>> table in
>> > the multi-stakeholder process, one stakeholder group has all the
>> liberties to
>> > push for a cent per registration as ICANN fees, but the process
>> requires equal
>> > liberties to another stakeholder group to argue for the fees to be
>> raised from
>> > 43 cents to four dollars. Then a balance arises.
>> > But if the influence of one stakeholder group is disproportionately
>> > to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are already
>> > for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways, then there is
>> > problem. I was alluding to that.
>> > Stakeholders arrive with their own positions, perhaps unfair to other
>> > stakeholders. The process brings about a fair solution, fair to all
>> > With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not necessary to
>> > across the table or in the sidelines. It is enough to arrive here,
>> state your
>> > position.
>> > Most of what you say about lobbying happens to be in the legislative /
>> > inter-governmental context. This is a different model. It is meant to
>> > differently. There are distortions at the moment that need to be
>> addressed, not
>> > by dismissing the entire process summarily.
>> > In making this argument, I am still not articulating parts of the
>> > well, apologies.
>> > Sivasubramanian M
>> > But they are generally highly interested parties and shouldn't in
>> > general be legislators or similar (judges, etc.)
>> > But they have every right, within certain boundaries, to lobby
>> > with legislative and legal power.
>> > Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider
>> > confusion and conflicts of interest a problem.
>> > As to experts of course many are paid to be advocates.
>> > I personally worked in research in occupational health and sat at a
>> > table with a major insurance company's hired expert.
>> > He was absolutely brilliant. As I recall he held a law degree, a
>> > medical degree, and a PhD in chemistry. The issue was industrial
>> > exposures to toxic chemicals and the insurance company's liability.
>> > Some of the points he raised were devastating to the current
>> > though could eventually be answered.
>> > And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose
>> > was primarily to model the effects of occupational health
>> > on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress
>> > relevant legislation was pending.
>> > Was he a lobbyist? In a sense, perhaps a lobbyist for facts and
>> > numbers in opposition to scare tactics such as some safety measure
>> > would put a large number of people out of work. I think the
>> > petrochemical, mining, and similar industry would label him a
>> > of sorts.
>> > --
>> > -Barry Shein
>> > Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://
>> > www.TheWorld.com
>> > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD |
>> > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>> -Barry Shein
>> Software Tool & Die | bzs at 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
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large