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

Tue May 5 08:43:13 UTC 2020

I understand your response Greg, and I'm glad to know I'm not one of the
bots. ;-)

I'm indeed being sensitive to dismissals of the public interest in this
group, and on rereading your mail see where the miscommunications happened.

Agreed to wrt devolving. Looking forward to a constructive debate on how
ALAC can rise to this significant task -- changing ICANN's core culture to
integrate the public interest into its activities, so that others are not
enticed to do the job in its absence.

- Evan

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 03:55, Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:

> 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”
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200505/c8da9589/attachment-0001.html>