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

Tue May 5 07:54:26 UTC 2020

Evan,

Before you wrote this latest thing, I was going to respond to your response
to me and say that I actually agreed with nearly everything you said in
that prior response. I’ll still say that.

Rather than responding to the personal attacks here,  I’ll just say that
you grossly misunderstand my views if you think our views are so opposed.
I’ll assume that your remarks here are are based on errors or failures to
communicate.

With regard to the “bots” (your word not mine) comment that seemed to have
inflamed you: I was referring specifically to the comments in opposition to
the .org registry agreement that came from people sending prewritten
comments through online forms or following scripts written for them by
certain organizers of the opposition.  You are clearly not one of those
“bots,”!but that doesn’t mean these people didn’t exist or weren’t
manipulated.

I never said or implied that all opponents were bots. Clearly there were
rational, well-informed and thoughtful  reasons to oppose this sale and to
criticize the behavior of all the actors in this drama.  And there were
rational, well-informed and thoughtful people expressing those views.  I
always thought you were in this category— and I think it still, in spite of
your “confession” that you were a mindless bot.

Frankly, the stupid, easily disproven, lurid and manipulative claims made
by some factions made it harder to discuss the more nuanced but in many
ways more fundamental problems in the deal and the process.

(Out of an excess of caution, Evan, I will explain that the “factions”
referred to in the previous paragraph Absolutely and specifically does not
refer to you.)

Let’s not let this devolve.

Greg

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:08 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
***********************************
Greg Shatan
President, ISOC-NY
“The Internet is for Everyone”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200505/39ba500b/attachment.html>