<html><head></head><body>Hi,<div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I would prefer that NCSG not ask ICANN to withhold approval of the sale of PIR. I’m not entirely convinced that it can using 7.5, since effectively, there is no reassignment of control of the gTLDs under PIR’s management. However, this is just a technicality, really. The change that PIR will undergo (specifically, being transformed from a NFP to a For-Profit corp.) is basically as significant as a complete change of control.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">My problem with this letter is that it doesn’t really do anything for .org registrants, wether they are non-commercial registrants or not (and there are apparently far more “other” registrants who are not non-commercial in the .org space).</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I’m not aware of any tangible practices by PIR that differentiate it from any other Registry, except perhaps that its profits go to ISOC, instead of going to shareholders. If this change in ownership and NFP status can be leveraged to achieve greater protections for civil society interests, which I believe was meant to be part of PIR’s original mandate when it was assigned management of .org, then this is something I believe is worth pursuing. Who ultimately owns PIR, and who benefits from its revenue (ISOC, Ethos, or anybody else) is not as much of an issue to me. The welfare of civil society actors with .org domain name registrations is more important, imo.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">If there was ever a time when PIR would be willing to listen to its customer base on how to better serve them, I assume that time is now. It strikes me as irresponsible to not even try. ICANN withholding approval of the change of ownership is pretty much a nuclear option, and I see no added value to anyone, if that measure is resorted to. Not to ISOC, not to PIR and definitely not to PIR’s customers.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">If anybody is interested in pursuing additional rights for .org registrants, Milton made some interesting suggestions on what those might include here: <a href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/" class="">https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/</a>. It isn’t an exhaustive list, but something to begin working with imo.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Amr</div><div class=""><div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 3, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" class="">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><div class="">
<div class="">Dear all,<br class=""/></div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I have drafted a letter outlining some concerns about the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital. <a rel="nofollow" title="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing" class="">It is in a Google Doc here.</a> In a nutshell, I am calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to withhold its approval for ISOC to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. I hope that the NCSG might consider sending it. Feel free to make/propose edits directly into the document. If the NCSG does not feel comfortable sending it, perhaps interested individuals could sign on instead and we can send it off in our individual capacities? Thanks.<br class=""/></div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Best wishes,<br class=""/></div><div class="">Ayden Férdeline<br class=""/></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""/></div></body></html>