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

Jacqueline Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com
Wed Jul 18 21:50:10 UTC 2018

+1 - very well put.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, 2:36 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy, <
6.internet at gmail.com> 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 employs
>> 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 the
>> 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 they
>> 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
> cultural differences here.  The word 'lobby' gives me a picture of a
> professional (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 practice. (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
> increased to the extent of occupying the other seats apart from what are
> already reserved for that stakeholder group, in direct and indirect ways,
> then there is a 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
> concerned. With this as the intended magic of the process, it is not
> necessary to lobby 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 work
> 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
> arguments 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 those
>> with legislative and legal power.
>> Which is why we try to keep the two roles separate and consider role
>> 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 arguments
>> though could eventually be answered.
>> And we (Harvard) also employed a full-time economist (PhD) whose job
>> was primarily to model the effects of occupational health legislation
>> on the industries involved often reporting before the US congress when
>> 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 lobbyist
>> of sorts.
>> --
>>         -Barry Shein
>> Software Tool & Die    | bzs at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180718/ac06b176/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list