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

[Alan Greenberg]

Evan, as I told you privately, in my opinion, 
there were certainly Board members who understood 
that the nature of .org was paramount, and I am 
not aware of any way, with PICs or otherwise, 
that we could guarantee that it be preserved if 
the transfer to Ethos went through.

So, perhaps the AG's letter had some impact, but 
I do not believe it was THE issue that caused the 
outcome, and probably not even a main one.

My personal opinion, and I presume it was one 
that Jonathan and the ALAC considered, was that 
an absolute condition of the sale going through 
was that there be iron-clad guarantees that the 
nature of the TLD be preserved and it not be 
marketed as a .com equivalent or some other 
similar dilution. I know of no way that could be 
done with contractual terms, even if ICANN could 
get them inserted. So while I could live with the 
sale going through WITH guarantees, I saw no way of getting those guarantees.

I have been an ISOC member for about 25 years, a 
former ISOC Board member, and the Board member 
who formally proposed that ISOC bid on .org. So I 
have some history and perspective. If the 
reactions from Ethos had been very different, 
perhaps I would have been convinced that the sale 
was good. But what I saw was nothing close to 
them understanding the issue, or providing 
satisfactory answers to the questions.

Indeed, *IF* the spirit of the 2002 delegation to 
PIR could be maintained and enforced, I could 
have lived with the transfer. I believed (and 
still believe) that this not dissimilar to how 
some and perhaps many Board members felt. The 
lack of being able to satisfy the *IF* was crucial.

Alan


At 2020-05-08 01:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 05:17, Jonathan Zuck 
><<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
>
>The fact is there was no real consensus among 
>the At-Large about the acquisition of PIR. There 
>were essentially 4 proposals on the table:
>
>
>Approve the sale
>Approve the sale with conditions (which is what 
>both the ALAC and NCSG settled upon)
>Deny the sale (essentially what happened)
>Take .ORG away from PIR and move it to a new entity
>
>As I said, you got that wrong. Totally wrong. 
>You fully missed the core issue which was not 
>"will Ethos screw registrants" but "did ISOC 
>violate the letter and spirit of the terms under 
>which ISOC was delegated .org in the first 
>place". And, as history has now shown, you (and 
>ICANN) needed the CA AG to save the day.
>
>There WAS a strong consensus, led primarily by 
>Roberto Gaetano, NOT to let the sale go through 
>without concessions so the group was motivated 
>to identify the appropriate concessions and 
>perhaps bake them into the .ORG contract so they 
>would. Survive changes of ownership.
>
>
>The issue was never about concessions. It was 
>about stewardship of .org as a registry that was 
>just a little different from the others, and 
>whether it could be treated like as a chattel the way other domains are.
>
>The consensus appears to be that if Ethos jumped 
>through just a few more hoops, made just a few 
>more garbage PICs and a better advisory board, 
>the sale would have been OK.  That was not the 
>view of ISOC chapters. It was not the view of 
>EFF. It was not the view of the American Red 
>Cross or the Girl Guides. It was not the view of 
>the thousands of charities and nonprofits that 
>signed onto petitions. It is not the view of 
>financial analysts who discovered that the new 
>registry would be saddled in debt and inevitably 
>forced to raise prices beyond the norm. It was 
>not the view of people who were around during 
>the original delegation of the domain to ISOC. 
>It was not the view of a single .org registrants 
>who expressed an opinion. It was not the view of human rights organizations.
>
>But the CPWG and ALAC knew better than all of them!!
>
>You should be embarrassed to have led that 
>dereliction of duty. ICANN does not seek 
>independent wisdom from ALAC, it is seeking a 
>reflection of the public mood. The voice on the 
>street, if you would, distilled maybe but 
>without judgment or second-guessing. And if ALAC 
>could get something so important so massively 
>wrong that ICANN's government oversight had to 
>step in to fix, it's impossible to have any 
>confidence that it will get any of the minor opinions right.
>
>  Now we can argue that many in the At-Large had 
> a relationship to ISOC which may have convoluted this discussion
>
>
>Considering that the overwhelming consensus of 
>ISOC Chapters and the official stance of the 
>ISOC Chapter Advisory Council was to oppose the 
>sale, clearly there were no signs of undue 
>influence this way. Nobody is arguing this so I wonder why you raise it.
>
>
>but there were also serious issues with the 
>public comments that arrived in volume and form 
>the primary indication of “public” dissatisfaction with the deal.
>
>
>Such as? Did you do any due diligence and 
>contact any of the commenters before summarily 
>deeming their opinions inferior to yours?
>
>That you use quotes on the word public in the 
>above context is -- I don't have a better word 
>for it -- disgusting. The height of dismissive elitism.
>
>We also need to set aside the fact that while 
>many in the At-Large work for non-profits, we 
>are not the voice of non-profits at ICANN.
>
>
>Let's be really clear here. In this role you are 
>not the voice of anything. ALAC's role is to 
>CHANNEL what end-users want from ICANN and 
>advise based on that, not pull opinions from 
>scratch out of your collective behinds. In this 
>extraordinary case, evidence of sentiment 
>outside the bubble was plentiful. Any outside 
>research at all would have inevitably led to the 
>correct conclusion on this issue, instead you 
>chose to ignore and "denigrate" it.  This 
>corporate oblivion to the real public sentiment 
>is clearly what drove the CA AG to intervene. So 
>you could have foregone that dreaded government 
>intervention simply by ensuring that ICANN knew 
>the public mood rather than making one up.
>
>While I was in ALAC the "who the hell are you to 
>claim to speak for the billions?" retort from 
>the domain industry always bothered me. On 
>reflection I realize that it was a perfectly 
>valid criticism and holds true today as much -- 
>maybe more -- than ever. ALAC lacks any 
>credibility that it listens to the outside 
>world. It  guesses, based on its own biases and 
>framed by ICANN staff, and as such represents 
>the view of no more than the 15 ALAC reps and a 
>handful of other self-appointed "experts" -- 
>present company included. There is zero effort 
>made to take the pulse of the public mood on 
>issues, a flaw that was exposed to the world this time.
>
>Indeed ... who the hell is ALAC to claim to 
>speak for the billions? That question now needs 
>to be asked from within At-Large too.
>
>The original theory in At-Large's design was 
>that ALSs were supposed to offer a kind of 
>broad-based audience that could be used to 
>discuss issues of import within a broader 
>population and bring their opinions back, 
>through RALOs, to ALAC. Not billions, but much 
>better than a few dozen and guaranteed to be 
>geographically diverse. For a ton of reasons 
>well beyond the scope of this thread, the ALS 
>theory has proven a complete failure. It can't 
>work, ALAC never allocates the time and process 
>to enable ALS consultation to take place. And 
>ALAC gets so involved with trivial and 
>irrelevant ICANN issues that could easily 
>overwhelm broad grassroots consultations.
>
>
>There were, of course, dissenters in the NCSG as 
>well, such as Kathy Kleinman, who believed that 
>PICs were inherently evil and a product of a top 
>down decision making process under Fadi
>
>
>For the record, and consistent since the day 
>PICs were invented, I agree with Kathy. So should ALAC.
>
>Now Evan, you might think that means they are 
>not “fit for “purpose” because of your 
>belief in what represented the public interest 
>but I find it difficult to believe that the 
>At-Large is somehow corrupt and purposefully subverted that public interest.
>
>
>Oh hell no. I'm not accusing anyone of 
>corruption. Complacency, egotism and maybe even cowardice, but not corruption.
>
>- 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200508/9b995863/attachment.html>