That's it. I've had enough. Now it's personal.
I just offered -- in far too much detail -- WHY the AG's intervention indicates a failure -- the many failures -- of ICANN to incorporate the public interest into its decision making.
And it was either blown off and/or dismissed as "a stretch".
Similarly, Greg dismisses the thousands of opponents of the Ethos sale as mindless, uneducated bots. I was one of those bots.
If I didn't know you guys and like and respect you personally I would have said some very bad words by now. But having calmed down, it has become crystal clear to me you guys -- and the mindset you bring to the debate -- are Part Of The Problem. You haven't just drunk the ICANN koolaid, you've bathed in it. Loyalty to this poor mutation of multistakeholderism -- that shuts out the most important stakeholder -- prevails. And if ALAC can't be the agent of change that ICANN needs to help it understand the needs of the world outside the bubble, nobody else will, at least internally. Enter the CA AG, and soon others.
I expect this level of dismissal and derision from GNSO constituencies who have always treated ALAC with the attitude of "so why are you still here?" But I don't expect it from within the only community explicitly charged with representing to ICANN those who are not part of the buyer-seller-consultant food chain. My how this place has changed from 2013. It's truly sad. Even sadder is that when the change does inevitably happen, you'll never see it coming because you were oblivious all along. At least I can say that I tried.
It's telling that all the positive response I've received to my comments yesterday were not posted here. Some came by private email, and some came on social media. Are they too intimidated to speak here, or have they just given up on being able to change ICANN from within? Don't know, don't care, same result.
Bring it on. And it will be brought on, if the wilful oblivion continues. Your ongoing fearmongering continues to not advance your case; California's approach to privacy is
almost lock-step with the GDPR. I could easily counter-fearmonger if pressed, but it's a tactic of desperation. What I do know is that the AG *might* make bad decisions, but ICANN already *has*, so the quality of decisions can't get much worse.