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

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:39, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Setting substance aside, the idea that the involvement of the AG is some
> kind of an indication that the multi-stakeholder model wasn’t working is a
> bit of a stretch.
>

That's it. I've had enough. Now it's personal.

I just offered -- in far too much detail -- WHY the AG's intervention
indicates a failure -- the many failures -- of ICANN to incorporate the
public interest into its decision making.

And it was either blown off and/or dismissed as "a stretch".

Similarly, Greg dismisses the thousands of opponents of the Ethos sale as
mindless, uneducated bots.* I was one of those bots.*

If I didn't know you guys and like and respect you personally I would have
said some very bad words by now. But having calmed down, it has become
crystal clear to me you guys -- and the mindset you bring to the debate --
are Part Of The Problem. You haven't just drunk the ICANN koolaid, you've
bathed in it. Loyalty to this poor mutation of multistakeholderism -- that
shuts out the most important stakeholder -- prevails. And if ALAC can't be
the agent of change that ICANN needs to help it understand the needs of the
world outside the bubble, nobody else will, at least internally. Enter the
CA AG, and soon others.

I expect this level of dismissal and derision from GNSO constituencies who
have always treated ALAC with the attitude of "so why are you still here?"
But I don't expect it from within the only community explicitly charged
with representing to ICANN those who are not part of the
buyer-seller-consultant food chain. My how this place has changed from
2013. It's truly sad. Even sadder is that when the change does inevitably
happen, you'll never see it coming because you were oblivious all along. At
least I can say that I tried.

It's telling that all the positive response I've received to my comments
yesterday were not posted here. Some came by private email, and some came
on social media. Are they too intimidated to speak here, or have they just
given up on being able to change ICANN from within? Don't know, don't care,
same result.

I’ll be curious what those who were opposed to this deal do when the AG
> gets involved on the other side from them in the future. When the IPC shows
> up and lobbies the AG to protect CA companies from GDPR , or. To get the AG
> involved in better copyright protection by registrars, or something similar
> it could get dicey. We’ll see.
>

Bring it on. And it will be brought on, if the wilful oblivion continues.
Your ongoing fearmongering continues to not advance your case; California's
approach to privacy is almost lock-step with the GDPR
<https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/californias-new-privacy-law-its-almost-gdpr-in-us-a-11149>.
I could easily counter-fearmonger if pressed, but it's a tactic of
desperation. What I do know is that the AG *might* make bad decisions, but
ICANN already *has*, so the quality of decisions can't get much worse.
In any case, even should I disagree with the AG's involvement in the
future, I right now have infinitely more trust in its ability to weigh
various interests than I have in ICANN's. I am not alone, And without trust
or treaty, what is ICANN?
- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200505/3bbc63b4/attachment-0001.html>