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

[Michael J. Oghia]

Stephanie, you just communicated the gist of what I tried to say, but in
such a better, more relevant, and more inclusive way. Thank you!

Best,
-Michael


On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:23 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I will respond to Amr on the matter of the Advisory Board
> representatives.  Joan Kerr and I both serve on the PIR Advisory Board, I
> am your official rep but Joan is also on the Board.  Unfortunately, we are
> not at liberty as members of the Advisory Board to bring back what we learn
> to the list, as we were reminded recently of our non-disclosure
> agreements.  I am happy to channel anything members care to discuss to my
> colleagues on the Advisory Board, including Jon Nevett, but it is not a
> great two way mechanism for members to learn more about the sale.
>
> Various members had requested that we do something.  Sending a letter
> expressing our concerns, asking questions, or requesting a given outcome is
> in my view important, regardless of whether we get our desired result in my
> view.  Frankly, how often do we actually succeed at ICANN?  (Please do not
> respond to that with a list of our successes, I am aware that many of our
> struggles yield better outcomes for non-commercial users than if we had not
> participated).  My point is, we are here to defend non-commercial interests
> and I would find it very odd if we remained silent on such a key issue,
> regardless of the likelihood of changing the outcome.
>
> Obviously this whole discussion, as in our comments on the actual removal
> of price caps, has shone a light on our differences in terms of what we
> understand ICANN's role to be in matters of price control.  Perhaps a
> statement of that fundamental disagreement might be added to the letter.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2019-12-04 06:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Yeah…, my problem isn’t that I don’t want NCSG to engage on this, but as
> you suggest, my problem is with the text (and purpose) of this draft
> letter. I think NCSG should get stuck into this issue, but hope that we
> don’t take the lead from other civil society organizations by simply
> objecting to the sale (which imo isn't such a disaster).
>
> I had indicated earlier on this thread that Milton proposed a few solid
> improvements to protections that the NCSG should try to negotiate. I’ve
> been toying around with at least one myself, but am not settled yet on what
> the best way to proceed might be.
>
> We do have several means of engaging with this event, such as via
> correspondence with the ICANN BoD, but my thinking right now is that the
> preferred first step would be to open a channel of communication with PIR,
> either directly from the NCSG to PIR, or via our representative on the PIR
> Advisory Council.
>
> If this thing can be turned around to get clear commitments from PIR on
> empowering civil society through its gTLDs, I believe this would be a win.
> Ethos and PIR have both declared their intent to better serve the NGO .org
> community. I’m not saying we take them at their word, but believe we should
> test their declarations before condemning them, and definitely before
> giving up on possibly getting something better out of this than was the
> status-quo before the announcement of the agreement to sell by ISOC was
> made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 4, 2019, at 1:07 PM, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/20191204/191efc7e/attachment.htm>