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

[Greg Shatan]

Evan,

Have you actually gone back and read the ALAC Advice to the Board?  I just
did.  I simply cannot square the claims you are making about that Advice
with the Advice itself.

Some quotes:
"the At-Large generally, and the ALAC specifically, join with others in
expressing our frustration with the manner with which the proposed
transaction came to light, the complexity and opacity of the transaction
and the optics inherent in both the timing and individuals involved."

"Approval of the transaction, by the ICANN board, must be conditioned on
amendments to the .ORG contract designed to capture, as much as possible,
the intentions of the original RFP which awarded the contract to ISOC in
the first place and encourage the predominant makeup of the .ORG space to
remain the most trusted TLD for non-profit entities and individuals"

"the Board should be prepared to block the transfer of ownership of the
registry on the basis of the public interest, absent significant changes to
the .ORG contract"

*"The ICANN Board has a “reasonable” basis to withhold approval of the
sale. *The original RFP provides explicit expectations about the intended
characteristics of a .ORG registry and a requirement to serve the nonprofit
community."

"the board should be prepared, however reluctantly, to block the sale of
PIR to Ethos Capital, absent substantial changes to the Registry Agreement
under which Ethos, or any future entity, must manage the domain.'

How is this "against the overwhelming opinion of the public, and eventually
on the wrong side of history," much less an "all-time low point" or the
basis of "a reasoned challenge to ALAC's legitimacy"?

This advice is in line with the Board's rejection of the transaction. The
concerns ALAC raised were not resolved by the parties to the transaction.
The recommendations ALAC made about how the deal might pass muster were
largely not taken up. Reading this Advice and considering what was
ultimately before the Board, it can only support the conclusion that Board
came to -- reject the transaction.  An approval of the transaction would
have constituted rejection of this Advice.  it was and is very much on the
right side of history.

Certainly, on the spectrum of opinions, there were those who opposed the
transaction absolutely, or who criticized specific aspects more strongly,
or cited concerns that did not gain traction within At Large.  Nonetheless,
the ALAC Advice is far closer to those views on the spectrum than it is to
those who supported the deal as presented, as revised or otherwise
criticized it but wanted it to work.  Yet, after reading your comments, I
questioned my recollection and expected to find something essentially
supportive of the transaction (which would seem to be "the wrong side of
history"). Of course, that is not at all what I found.

Given all this, your reaction seems, at the least, very disproportionate to
the difference in viewpoints -- in the strength of your expression, in the
fallout you predict, in the extent to which your critique strayed into *ad
personam* territory and in the bruises that such an approach may well
leave.  I just can't understand this reaction when the underlying
difference seems to be one of degree - that ALAC did not take a hard enough
line or adopt enough of the hardline arguments.

The only sense I can make of this is that your criticism really is more
about the process and even the people than it is about the result.

Greg



On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 5:43 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> Maureen,
>
> If I were you I would not be so quick to remind. That not a single ALAC
> member expressed disapproval of advice that was against the overwhelming
> opinion of the public, and eventually on the wrong side of history, ought
> not be casually brought out as a source of pride. As far as I'm concerned
> this vote is the all-time low point in ALAC's service to ICANN and the
> community it claims to serve. It will probably be used in the future as
> part of a reasoned challenge to ALAC's legitimacy.
>
> For the January 2020 ALAC Advice on ISOC/PIR Issue
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ISOC+Sells+PIR>,
>> unanimously in favor: *15Y, 0N, 0A*
>>
>> For the March 2020 ALAC submission to PIR public comment
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ALAC+Feedback+to+PIR+Public+Comment+Proceeding>,
>> unanimously in favor: *15Y, 0N, 0A*
>>
>
> - 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/20200510/c2293bf0/attachment-0001.html>