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

[Roberto Gaetano]

Hi all.
I wanted to stay away from the way this discussion is turning, but now I feel that I need to clarify a couple of things, considering that Jonathan has mentioned me directly.
First of all, I agree with who, like Javier, believe that both co-chairs - but in particular Jonathan - have done an excellent job under very difficult conditions to bring the crowd to a conclusion. As always, there was no unanimity, but the rough consensus seemed pretty clear.
The second point is that I was a strong supporter - actually, I think that I was even the proposer, but I may be wrong - of the option of not opposing the sale but asking for some safeguards. The reason why I took this position is explained at length in the archives, but can be summarised in the belief that we would not have the strength to force the ICANN Board to deny the transaction, also in consideration of the fact that I was assuming that such denial would have brought a huge lawsuit to ICANN. I remain still convinced that, without the intervention of the CA-AG, who basically has shielded ICANN against a lawsuit, the Board would have decided differently.
Last but not least, maybe we have a different opinion of what a “lobbyist” is - if this is the case, we must agree to disagree. But this is just a matter of words. The substance of the question that Bill asks is whether the opinion of stakeholders who are normally not participating in the process should be taken into account or not. My personal answer is “Yes, but”, and I want to explain why we should deal with a situation like this “cum grano salis”. This group has been created, as the name “Consolidated Policy Working Group” - CPWG - suggests, by having as participants the people who are members of all the ALAC working groups, in order to share their information and “consolidate” the different perspectives in, as much as possible, a common view. It seems clear to me - but I am sure that there are different opinions - that this “consolidation” work may be seriously disrupted, and therefore made ineffective, if on one single item outsiders flock in in numbers to capture the consensus and determine a different outcome. In short, the well-known problem of “capture”. So, yes, all different ideas are welcome, all contributions are useful, and it is a very healthy situation to have newcomers to bring fresh air - but to participate only on one single item and pretend to change the outcome based on the assumption that the members who are constantly dedicating their time as volunteers are “lobbyists” while newcomers are the real unbiased voice of the user community is, frankly speaking, too much for me to consider as an acceptable position.
Best regards,
Roberto


> On 08.05.2020, at 11:44, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 8, 2020, at 11:16 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
>> If we took the time to GREP (or more likely Amazon Comprehend) the listserv archives they would reveal fewer than 5 people (nearly if not ALL new to the list)...
> 
> Is it your position that stakeholders should not join the list when it strays into matters of real-world import, but that the list should be reserved for full-time lobbyists even then?
> 
>                                -Bill
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.