<div dir="ltr">Benjamin, this deal will at all cost catch up with concern government and other bodies that maters.<div>Is a big shame, we preach stakeholderism and inclusion, turn round and do the opposite. <br><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small"><div><b>WISDOM DONKOR</b><br></div><div><font size="1">President & CEO</font></div><div><font size="1">Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation</font></div><div><font size="1">P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | <a href="http://www.aodirf.org" target="_blank">www.aodirf.org</a> / <a href="http://www.afrigeocon.org" target="_blank">www.afrigeocon.org</a> </font></div><div><font size="1">Tel: +233 20 812 8851</font></div><div><font size="1">Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk </font></div><div>__________________________________________________</div><div><font size="1">Specialization:</font></div><div><font size="1">E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, </font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <<a href="mailto:benakin@gmail.com">benakin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear All, <div>I think we are back at the beginning again. If we resonate with the demands of the senators, we should just copy them and advocate for them as well.</div><div>I align with everyone that we should avoid getting any form of govt interference in this matter.</div><div>It appears this is a matter very close to the heart of our constituency, hence it should form the core of our discussion and should climax at ICANN67.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my thoughts,</div><div>Benjamin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:19 AM Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
If we are to avoid counterproductive actions by the US government, I
think it's imperative that ICANN act quickly and decisively to
address the problem. It's clear to me that the .org registry cannot
remain with ISOC. But it's equally clear that Ethos Capital, a
private equity fund with no track record of operating an important
component of the global Internet, cannot be trusted to safeguard the
interests of noncommercial registrants for the long term. Also, the
secretive nature of the sale--PIR still has not responded to ICANN's
request for information of 9 December--shows further why ICANN needs
to halt the sale. Whether Ethos Capital can earn the trust of the
community remains to be seen. <br>
<br>
In the meantime, ISOC and Ethos are rushing ahead with the sale.
They intend to complete it by April. That's why NCSG needs to
recommend bold action, quickly. I agree with Caleb that action can
go beyond mere public comment. ICANN has the contractual power to
halt the change in control of the .org registry, but ICANN must act
soon. I support invoking the Empowered Community, but direct
engagement with the ICANN Board and top staff will also be crucial.
<br>
<br>
Beyond that, I think NCSG should lay out a set of binding
constraints that the .org registry operator must adhere to, without
regard to who that operator is. Those should include, at minimum,
avoidance of price gouging and guarantees against censorship,
whether private or government-directed. If Ethos Capital agrees to
those constraints, then the sale can proceed. If not, another more
trusted organization will need to be found to run the registry. <br>
<br>
Whatever we do, let's do it soon.<br>
<pre cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div>On 1/5/20 6:48 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<font size="2" face="Tahoma">
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">This is more than a "slippery
slope", it is a risky precipice over which ICANN does
not want to fall. The issues here need to be addressed
within the multistakeholder mechanisms of ICANN.
Allowing the U.S. Congress to play a role would result
in significant damage to ICANN's independence and
multistakeholder processes. This needs to be addressed
from within, even if that exposes shortcomings in
ICANN's internal mechanisms and processes. <br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">What is still lacking is a
strategic objective, and outcome, to be pursued and
supported. What exactly are "we" (NCSG) asking be done
here? One "ask" is the choice of venue and mechanism.
Via the "Empowered Community"? Other avenues?. The other
"ask" is what is the objective here. I think we all
agree that any strategy that involves ISOC retaining PIR
is a non-option. That would be equally damaging on
several fronts, both for ISOC and for ICANN and
ICANN-registry relations. What is the elephant in the
room here? I think for all of us that "elephant" is a
lack of trust in the promises of Ethos Capital with
regard to its intentions on how it would run PIR and the
.org registry. <br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">So what are NCSG's options? What
should we be thinking about as we start to build a
consensus NCSG response. The first, in my view, it for
us to confirm to ourselves that objecting to any ISOC
sale of PIR is not a position that should be taken. The
second, not in the order that first comes to mind, it to
think through what is seen as a desirable outcome, and
the third is what ICANN mechanisms should be used to
pursue that outcome. We need a discussion on What and
How in order to form any response. Looking at the views
of others, and at our views expressed elsewhere, helps
but we need a consensus building dialogue here so that
any pen holders for Rafik's google-docs NCSG comment
letter produce a comment that is stakeholder informed. <br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">I have suggested elsewhere that
there are several positions we might consider and push
ICANN to consider. One is whomever the buyer there are
safeguards built into the sale, most desirably
preserving PIR as a non-profit or incorporated as a
Benefit Corporation, no matter who the buyer is. The
other, less likely, is seeking to re-open that buyer
search to include sovereign funds, charitable
foundations, and the like. We need a discussion here. It
is not enough to simply inform ourselves about who may
agree with our concerns. What are we recommending?<br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><br>
</font></font></font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma">Sam Lanfranco, NCSG/NPOC<br>
</font></font></font></div>
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"></font></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(0,0,0);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px">---- Original Message ----<br>
<b>From</b>: dorothy g <a href="mailto:dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank"><dgdorothydg@GMAIL.COM></a><br>
<b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Sent</b>: Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 1:54 AM<br>
<b>Subject</b>: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">I agree
slippery slope</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<span> </span><br>
</font>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>