ICANN is mocking the California Attorney General in a letter submitted on January 31, 2020.
ICANN’s attorneys (Jones Day) replied to the letter from California Attorney General (Xavier Becerra) on the 23rd of January regarding the .ORG change of control.
The attorney replying to the letter is Jeffrey Rabkin. Jeff joined Jones Day from the Office of the Attorney General (AG) in the California Department of Justice, where he was a member of the AG’s executive team and Special Assistant Attorney General for Law and Technology (2013-2015).
I will leave you digest that and give some details about the letter.
So why is the letter a mockery? Here is why:
- The letter provides materials to only 11 of the 35 requests made by the Office of the California Attorney General.
- All material provided is publicly available. I guess ICANN thinks that the Attorney General can’t Google a few PDFs?
- No material not publicly available was provided by ICANN. I even wonder if ICANN worked with this attorney preparing this letter.
- The letter provides links to these materials instead on providing the PDFs.
- 13 of the 30 links provided are broken. Clicking on them will NOT take you to the correct page. Instead you get to a 404 page not found. You need to copy and paste the links in your browser.
- Broken links include the page of the ICANN board of directors and the ICANN conflict of interest policy webpage.
- Some of the Attorney General requests are not simply answered with a link. The attorney seems to only want to bury the Attorney General in PFDs instead of providing clear and precise info.
- Non of the contact information of the ICANN board of directors was provided. Just their names from the ICANN website. (#34 from the OAG letter)
- The Attorney General requested PIR’s unredacted response to ICANN’s request for additional information regarding the acquisition of PIR by Ethos Capital. Instead the Attorney General received the redacted version that is publicly available and ICANN said: “ICANN intends to produce the nonpublic version of this document following its compliance with its contractual obligations to PIR.” (#5 from the OAG letter)
- I believe that a lot of information is missing even from these 11 requests (out of 35) that ICANN provided responses to. ICANN and this attorney seems to even imply this: “Likewise, while we have endeavored to give you a broad overview of responsive, publicly available information, there may be additional public information responsive to your requests. To the extent we identify such materials, we will supplement this list of links in a future letter.”
In short this letter was a waste of time and mocks the California Attorney General providing partial and incomplete of the 11 requests in a badly composed letter. You don’t have to be an ICANN attorney or even an attorney to write such a letter.
And I am not even getting into the substance of the provided documents…
This whole think stinks from the beginning and it only gets worse by the day.