<html><head></head><body>Hi Milton,<div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Responses in-line below:<br class=""/><div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 23, 2019, at 4:36 AM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@GATECH.EDU" class="">milton@GATECH.EDU</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Amr,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I agree that we want to limit ICANN’s power to do things outside of its remit. But Article 7.5 is clearly within their remit – it’s in the contract. Case closed. And there’s nothing in the language of that article that says they can’t refuse the deal if they think there is something deeply wrong with the sale.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""/></div><div>I don’t deny the existence of Article 7.5, and agree that they can refuse the change in control of PIR if there is something wrong with the sale, but the question is, from an ICANN perspective, is there something wrong? If there is, then yeah…, invoking 7.5 would be the right thing to do, but I’m not sure there is any wrong, let alone deeply wrong. Again…, I stress that this is from an ICANN perspective, not an overall one.</div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">As for adhering to defined process, the including of the URS and other so-called RPMs in the legacy org contract was completely outside of ICANN’s legitimate policy process. And it was done for the flimsiest of reasons (making the contracts consistent).</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""/></div><div>Agree. I don’t get the consistency of contract excuse either, and even if I did, it still doesn't justify ICANN Org circumventing the PDP. To me on this matter, ICANN is essentially acting in conflict with its own Bylaws, which places responsibility of gTLD policy development with the GNSO, not with ICANN staff.</div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">We are now in an interesting bind. Those of us who – like me and you – want ICANN to stick to its processes have to face the fact that ICANN willingly breaks its own processes when powerful interests – sometimes GAC and LEA, sometimes Big Trademark (with ALAC tagging along), sometimes the CPH – want something. Maybe it’s our turn this time.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""/></div><div>I don’t buy this, and am surprised that you do. How about you entertain me with a hypothetical:</div><div><br class=""/></div><div>ICANN has decided to amend the base registry agreement to require that all Registry Operators be incorporated as For-Profit corporations. They cite some lame excuse (they’re pretty adept at doing that) like similar to consistency of contracts across registries, or whatever.</div><div><br class=""/></div><div>I imagine that the NCSG would (rightfully) be in an uproar over this, and not only for the substantive reasons, but also because ICANN would be imposing obligations on gTLD Registry Operators, which they have absolutely no right to, and which will negatively impact registrants.</div><div><br class=""/></div><div>What you’re saying is this is ok, if we benefit, but not ok if we are harmed. Like I said, I don’t buy it. Sorry, Milton (not really sorry). ;-)</div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I think it is perfectly reasonable to call for ICANN to deny the delegation, not as an end in itself or as a futile hope that things return to the good old days, but as a means to achieve stronger contractual protections for registrants in the .Org RA. Such as:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">- some kind of content neutrality/no content regulation guarantee<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">- elimination of the URS in .org<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">- the right to 20, 30 or 40 year renewals of names, as a protection against gouging existing registrants. Let them charge whatever they want for new registrations.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""/></div><div>These are all worthy objectives, but I very seriously doubt that ICANN would be motivated to help us achieve any of them, and writing a letter to the Board won’t change that. I also don’t see how associating these objectives with a delay or refusal to let the .org Registry Agreement stand helps make any of them a reality. But if there is some strategy behind this that I’m missing, I’d be happy to learn more about it.</div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">Maybe we can get behind this program and our criticism of this deal will look more like a real cause and less like a lot of whining.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""/></div><div>Would love nothing more. In fact, one of my problems with writing to the ICANN Board is that I’m concerned that the written objection is the objection in itself, even if we know it will yield no favorable outcome for non-commercial registrants. Add the abandonment of a principle I’d like to see NCSG stand for…, now we’re paying a price for the opportunity to “whine”, as you put it.</div><div><br class=""/></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br class=""/></div><div>Amr</div></div></div></body></html>