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

Nick Shorey lists at NICKSHOREY.COM
Wed Dec 4 09:36:04 EET 2019 

Hi everyone,

Firstly, in the interests of disclosure, I am a community member of the ISOC England chapter, but not involved in any decisions or activity regarding the proposed sale.

Whilst I commend Ayden and others for their efforts in the drafting of the letter and work on the mailing list to bring attention to this issue, I do not give my approval of the transmission of this letter to the ICANN Board in the name of NCSG, and it seems at this stage there is no consensus to doing so.

My reasons for objection are thus:

- ICANN’s relationship through its registry agreement is with PIR, who will still operate the TLDs after the sale. Clause 7.5 as I understand (happy to be corrected) pertains to a change of registry operator, or subcontracting to another registry operator, and not to a change of significant shareholder in the registry operator itself.

- I think the specific request to halt the sale is better directed to ISOC, because they are the controlling shareholder in PIR who are positioning to sell;

- I’m not convinced an open tendering process is a desirable solution;

- I’m not convinced by the risks. Many charities and non-profits have telephone numbers and other services which they pay for to for-profit, private and publicly listed companies. Any price increases will need to remain competitive in an expanding gTLD market.

- Whilst understanding and supportive of the principle of a TLD space for charities and public interest organisations, there appears to be a lack of supporting documentation enshrining this, and indeed .org is open to all registrants.


The timelines and closed nature of this proposed sale are very concerning. Therefore I do believe there is value in requesting from ICANN publication of correspondence with PIR and its representatives regarding the lifting of price caps; any correspondence with members or representatives of ISOC on this issue; any correspondence with members or representatives of Ethos Capital on this issue.

I hope this response proves helpful to all.

Kind regards,

Nick

Nick Shorey
Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
Email: lists at nickshorey.com
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
Web: www.nickshorey.com




> On 4 Dec 2019, at 13:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> I’m not asking that you bring back information on the sale, or that you violate an NDA. What I’m saying is that since the NCSG appoints a member to PIR’s Advisory Council, it can serve as a means to communicate to them proposals we come up with, concerning how PIR better serves its non-commercial .org (or other gTLDs) customers.
> 
> This doesn’t mean that if any proposals we submit result in further discussion, that they remain with the Advisory Council, but could possibly include executives from PIR and Ethos engaging with our membership directly. This isn’t new. If you recall, the NCSG played a role in having PIR abandon plans to adopt private rights protection mechanisms for trademark holders a few years ago, when they were considering it.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto: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 <mailto: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/eb902711/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list