[CPWG] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from California Attorney General Regarding .ORG Change of Control

Mon Feb 3 14:08:21 UTC 2020

I agree that determining which voices have an "innate connection to the
public interest" is a challenge.

Have a good night,

Nat

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:59 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Thanks Nat.  I’ve made no secret of the fact that I have found “single
> issue” participation on the list by commercial interests to be often
> frustrating and the voices often to be quite shrill. To answer your
> specific points, after which I MUST return to bed!
>
>
>
>    1. My response to David was because he said that the AG’s entry
>    pointed to a flaw in At-Large consensus building as though somehow the AG
>    was paying attention to At-Large consensus building rather than simply
>    being another opportunity for David to air his grievance.
>    2. The domainers HAVE played an extremely aggressive organizing role.
>    You even quoted some of the emails that went out to non-profits in an
>    earlier note that were pretty provocative.
>    3. As for the NRO inspection request, it DID come out of the blue and
>    it turned out that it WAS, in fact, motivated from the outside.
>    4. Again, on the 3k comments, a huge majority of them were form emails
>    generated from the ICA website.
>
>
>
> I agree it’s wrong to be completely dismissive of these things, and I try
> not to be, but you have to admit having totally new voices, with no innate
> connection to the public interest, and no expression of interest in any
> other topics, suddenly join up a list and start throwing around accusations
> of illegitimacy, is a bit hard to stomach.
>
>
>
> *From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Nat Cohen <
> ncohen at telepathy.com>
> *Date: *Monday, February 3, 2020 at 5:47 AM
> *To: *David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from
> California Attorney General Regarding .ORG Change of Control
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> That the California AG has seen it necessary to step in to look after the
> public interest since ICANN has failed to do so, should be a wake up call
> and prompt reflection as to where ICANN went wrong.
>
>
>
> Certain people in At-Large presume to speak for end users while
> simultaneously delegitimizing the voices of end users and registrants.
> While accusing others of comments that "are designed to put folks on the
> defensive, to shut them up, not have constructive discussion" that is often
> their own contribution to the discussion.
>
>
>
> Mr. Zuck, just now: "The idea that the California AG was somehow
> disappointed in the At-Large bottom up consensus building process and
> therefore made a heartfelt entry into the fray is just about the most
> ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard."
>
>
> Mr. Shatan: re Sam Klein piece:  "There’s a heavy reliance on domainers
> and their (direct and indirect) handiwork, which contributes to the
> overheated tone and rush to judgment imbued in this piece."
>
> Mr. Zuck: re NRO inspection request:  "I suspect, from reading how
> carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic."
>
> Mr. Zuck: re an EFF letter: "I confess I’d be interested to see who is
> behind this site.  The talking points are very similar to those with which
> we were bombarded by ICA during the original discussions around .ORG. Deep
> down, we ALL know that the only ones truly harmed by a price increase are
> volume registrants. It was you who suggested that a price hike might
> actually be pro-consumer. Let’s not lose site of all that because we’re
> pissed at ISOC. Let’s try to keep from being manipulated again and do a
> reasoned analysis of the situation."
>
> Mr. Shatan: re Jacob Malthouse article: "There are more important things
> than a pissing match in the toilet of public opinion."
>
> Mr. Zuck: re public comments on .ORG: "In a world where the domainers can
> gin up 3k ridiculous comments, activation needs to be a priority for the
> At-Large!"
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Nat Cohen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:20 AM David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Greg,
>
>
>
> "... no invitation needed." Thank you for stating the obvious. Your
> response shows that my attempt to convey a sense of humour failed. I guess
> my failure just adds to Olivier's original failed attempt at humour when he
> shared the picture of protestors.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I don't view the Cal AG's entrance into the game as merely
> interesting. I view it as a failure of iSOC to respect the trusted
> stewardship of .ORG. It also shows a lack of trust in ICANN's
> multistakeholder model to do the right thing based on principles. Finally,
> this issue has exposed a potential flaw in how At-Large conducts an open
> and bottom-up consensus building process.
>
>
>
> Lots of work to be done here, I guess.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> David
>
>
>
> p.s. Hopefully my comments are pithy enough for this list. Unfortunately,
> I wasn't given much time on the CPWG weekly call to have a meaningful
> conversation about the important issues in front of At-Large. I remain
> committed to sharing my thoughts in a respectful way with the hope that
> positive change on multiple fronts might come out of this discussion.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:46 AM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
>
> FYI, the California Attorney General was already at the table, no
> invitation needed.  By law, the Cal AG has formal oversight authority over
> all non-profit corporations domiciled in California, including ICANN.  That
> said, I can't recall the last time (if ever) that the Cal AG exercised that
> authority with ICANN.  So this is an interesting turn of events....
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 12:23 PM David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing the information Marita.
>
>
>
> You know, it's a little funny. I don't remember seeing the California's
> Attorney General in the picture that Olivier shared with us a few days ago.
>
>
>
> It's possible that important issues on Internet Governance are so
> disconnected from the average end user that they have no clue what happens
> between Internet leadership organizations like ICANN and iSOC.
>
>
>
> This disconnection of knowledge might allow for funny behaviour motivated
> by financial gain for some insiders which adds no value to end users, but
> increases risk to a stable Internet by introducing financial leverage which
> didn't exist before an unnecessary financial transaction.
>
>
>
> Since iSOC has chosen a process which takes advantage of the disconnect
> with the public (end users), it would be nice to see ICANN make a
> principled decision based on an open multistakeholder process. The failure
> of an open and effective multistakeholder process invites other people to
> the table, like California's Attorney General for instance.
>
>
>
> Within ICANN, we also have our At-Large community. Having received the
> great training at ATLAS III about how the multistakeholder process is
> supposed to work, I wonder if the reality of the At-Large consensus
> building process is also severely disconnected from the ideal process that
> was taught at ICANN66. Unfortunately, the .ORG transfer seems to be
> pressing the fault lines of a public test of consensus withinin At-Large.
> This is a different problem from the .ORG transfer issue itself.
>
>
>
> Just a thought or two. :-)
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> David
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:53 PM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Attached for your information, letter to ICANN from the California AG.
> ICANN has is now seeking a deadline extention from PIR  in order to reply
> to the 35 questions posed by the State of California re the proposed sale.
>
> Marita
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> *Subject: *
>
> [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from California Attorney General
> Regarding .ORG Change of Control
>
> *Date: *
>
> Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:58:57 -0200
>
> *From: *
>
> Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
>
> *To: *
>
> NCUC Discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
>
>
> Dear NCUC,
>
> FYI
>
> During this morning, at the NCSG call with Board Member Matthew Shears, he
> mentioned that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of
> California has requested information from ICANN regarding the PIR deal. The
> correspondence
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-to-icann-board-23jan20-en.pdf>
> asks a set of 35 questions/requests to ICANN, from organizational matters,
> ICANNs capacity to regulate the registration fees and so on.
>
> Icann also issued a blog post
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-01-30-en> explaining that
> they are also
>
>
> *"providing formal notice to PIR, pursuant to the terms of the PIR
> Registry Agreements, because the CA-AGO has requested that ICANN provide
> information that PIR designated as confidential. In addition, the CA-AGO
> has asked for more time, surpassing the current ICANN deadline to review
> the proposed change of control of the PIR Registry Agreements that is
> currently set as 17 February 2020. Accordingly, the letter from ICANN to
> PIR requests additional time, up to 20 April 2020, to conclude both the
> CA-AGO and ICANN reviews." *
> Best regards,
>
> --
>
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
>
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>
> @boomartins
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200203/b7ae9f7b/attachment-0001.html>