[proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital

[Michael J. Oghia]

Hi Amr,

It's always good to hear from you, and all fair points.

Let me clarify that, to me, staying silent about this undermines what we
stand for. The complexities regarding the how (i.e., what recommendations
to suggest, etc.) are open to discussion. I simply don't think that the
NCSG should not formally address this, especially when there is enough
evidence to suggest that there could be potential harm to the interests of
non-commercial registrants.

If you simply disagree with addressing the issue via a statement or
additional advocacy, then it's a moot point. If the issue is with the text
itself, however, would you be willing to draft something else that
articulates any missing nuance or suggestions for routes going forward?

Best,
-Michael


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 10:50 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Issuing formal statements is not the most important reason for NCSG’s
> existence. Advancing the interests of non-commercial registrants through
> gTLD policy development is. This is explained nicely in the NCSG Charter
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter>.
>
> The only letters the NCSG should be interested in issuing are the ones
> that advance its mission. I don’t believe the letter being discussed on
> this thread achieves this. I would hope that the NCSG would be a little
> more ambitious in what it might get for non-commercial registrants out of
> all this. Not trying is what would be the *“injustice to our
> values/principles”*.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 4, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed Ayden. As the non-commercial constituency, I think it would be an
> injustice to our values/principles and our entire raison d'etre if we
> didn't issue at least some kind of formal statement about this. I don't
> think doing so would contradict the more nuanced technical and political
> maneuvering that Milton and others suggest in terms of possible recourse.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:59 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think Lizzy and Milton among others have drawn lot of attention to non
>> effect of this letter or any other one.
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree that sending this letter would be unlikely to have an effect. I
>> just don't think that's a reason to remain silent and not send one.
>> Shouldn't we at least try?
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 01:31, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> I think Lizzy and Milton among others have drawn lot of attention to non
>> effect of this letter or any other one.
>>
>> I will like to suggest to those of us who have hanged around .org TLD to
>> start thinking of plan B including getting alternate domain and redirect
>> the current one and if hosted by PIR find alternative too depending on the
>> agreement abnitio.
>> Regards
>> Remmy
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 8:33 PM Liz Orembo <lizorembo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ICANN has no authority to stop the sale of PIR to a private entity.  But
>>> this sale is unethical from multiple dimensions and among other things will
>>> have a negative impact on the future of Multistakeholderism in the IG
>>> ecosystem.
>>>
>>> I bet no one saw this coming, and mixed with ISOC being too familiar at
>>> the time of auctioning contributed to this legal loophole.
>>>
>>> As NCSG I don't think our efforts to influence ICANN broad to halt this
>>> sale will yield anything.  But surely the board is free to issue an advise
>>> against the sale. The silence makes it seem like everything is okay or at
>>> least it is supporting this madness.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 21:19 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve reviewed this letter and I think it takes the wrong approach and
>>>> should be scrapped.
>>>>
>>>> It is basically asking ICANN to just stop the sale, which it has no
>>>> real authority to do, and does not offer a viable set of protections for
>>>> .org registrants.
>>>>
>>>> It’s about expressing anger and not about constructive response.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>>>
>>>> School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>> [image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Ayden
>>>> Férdeline
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:51 AM
>>>> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> *Subject:* [proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the
>>>> Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted a letter outlining some concerns about the proposed sale
>>>> of PIR to Ethos Capital. It is in a Google Doc here.
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191204/ff0dceb9/attachment.htm>