[CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR

[Bill Woodcock]

On May 4, 2020, at 4:50 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Perhaps we need to get better at this, or be more precise, but these rules and processes have generally been acceptable for quite some number of years.

Selection bias.  They’re acceptable to the people who don’t leave in frustration.

At 2020-05-03 03:35 PM, David Mackey wrote:
> It seems that the position of the California Attorney General aligns better with the dissent voiced in the At-Large CPWG email thread discussions, rather than the advice that was eventually given to the board.

Yep.  Because the CA AG is charged with upholding the public interest.

> The final .ORG decision may over

?

The board _invited_ ISOC to try again with a non-Fadi-associated PE fund.  And has been completely ignoring all of the requests to run the normal multistakeholder competition.

Very hard for me to imagine that there’s anyone outside ISOC and a few lobbyists and the ICANN board who imagine that we’re in anything other than the briefest of respites.

> I hope there's opportunity for a discussion on how to improve the At-Large consensus process.

Oh, I imagine there’ll be _discussion_.

> It appears the dissent voices raised in this email group did, in fact, have merit and were not easily dismissed outside the At-Large community as being merely "passionate".

Likewise true of the larger conversation.

> It might be a good idea to see how we as a community can better encapsulate dissent and non-consensus into our process.

Or just actually represent consensus, rather than only consensus-of-lobbyists.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200504/486c469c/signature-0001.asc>