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

Sun May 10 17:56:10 UTC 2020

Dear Greg,

thank you for taking the time to spell this out. I should add that the
California Attorney General makes a direct reference to the ALAC's
Advice as well as the ISOC Chapter Advisory Council letter, the letter
signed by 824 non-profits etc.
So how could the California Attorney General refer to the ALAC's advice
that's allegedly "against the overwhelming opinion of the public"?

Many long time observers of ALAC advice will see that it often is more
mitigated than correspondence from other more focussed communities that
act in unison. That is a direct consequence of the variety we have in
our communities, both geographical and cultural - and I like to see it
this way. Democracies encourage all kinds of views and elections are
usually pretty balanced. Only in totalitarian regimes are policies
supported with a 99% support. At times in the past, I have thought that
a piece of ALAC Advice would get support from 99% of our members - and
guess what, there were more dissenting voices than I had expected, and
sometimes the dissent I heard reminded me that many of the topics we
have to grapple with are not straight yes/no, true/false, good/bad,
binary problems with binary solutions. I am glad this community is
mature enough to avoid falling into crowd lynching.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 10/05/2020 07:01, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200510/c899e87e/attachment.html>