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

[Roberto Gaetano]

Hi Evan.
Just a quick clarification on one paragraph.


You may well be correct. By I find the rationale truly puzzling. To propose an inferior solution because you don't think the superior one would be adopted? Is our role to tell ICANN what end-users want/need, or to tell ICANN what we think it wants to hear?


True, I did propose an “inferior” solution. For me, the best option would have been to stop the sale - which is what happened.
But the reason for the “inferior” solution was not to tell ICANN what they wanted to hear, but to propose something that I thought was feasible rather that go for an “all or nothing” taking the risk of having nothing.
Maybe I got it wrong - it would not be my first mistake, nor probably the last one. As you say, we’ll never know how it would have gone otherwise.

Anyway, at some point in time we will need to look ahead. The story is far from ended. If ISOC has decided to sell PIR, they will give it another try. I suspect that they are already analysing the motivations of the CA-AG decision and try to get it right next time.
This means that we should start thinking what are the minimum requirements for having a .org controlled by the user community, that is the non-profits worldwide.

Cheers,
Roberto


But how do you know what ICANN wants to hear? I have heard otherwise, that the Board may well have rejected the sale even without the California AG; having ALAC supporting rejection might have pushed it over the top. We'll never know.

What we DO know is the the CA AG stepped in to assert the public interest, at least in part because ALAC would not. More detail in a followup email

- Evan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200508/0fa28eeb/attachment.html>