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

[Mitch Stoltz]

I support submitting the letter drafted by Ayden. Amr proposed, in the 
alternative, "engaging with both ICANN and PIR on how PIR can better 
serve the needs of civil society." While I support such engagement, it 
gives us no leverage to effect change.

On the NTEN call yesterday, Andrew Sullivan and Erik Brooks said that 
they intend to conclude the sale as quickly as possible, but no later 
than the first quarter of 2020. Once the sale is finalized, we will have 
little to no influence over the operation of .ORG. The only formal 
constraint on that operation is the Registry Agreement between PIR and 
ICANN. And earlier this year, when that agreement was renewed, it was 
altered to make it less protective of registrants in several ways. ICANN 
staff dismissed thousands of comments that were nearly unanimous in 
opposing the new contractual terms. There was no multistakeholder input.

This means that if we don't stop or at least delay the sale, we can 
"engage" with the newly for-profit PIR all we want, but they will have 
little incentive to make any changes.

There is plenty that an unrestrained PIR can do to hurt the interests of 
noncommercial registrants. The reason there hasn't been much harm yet is 
because of ISOC's influence, or at least ISOC's concern for its 
reputation. A mysterious private equity firm that didn't exist eight 
months ago will have no such compunctions. /And we will have no real 
influence./ That's why we need to call on ICANN to halt the sale. How 
can we fail to respond /now/, when it might mean something?

Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/

On 12/4/19 7:43 AM, Nick Shorey wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for the responses. I agree it is possible it could be seen as 
> an indirect change, though I read it more as a situation where PIR 
> were to outsource registry backend operations for example.
>
> Re open tender - I’d personally prefer PIR remained as it were. An 
> open tender process risks the potential for an even less appropriate 
> operator winning the bid.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nick
>
> Nick Shorey
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
>
>
>
>> On 4 Dec 2019, at 15:32, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA 
>> <mailto:aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Dec 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM 
>>> <mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This letter is not about halting the sale; it is about preventing 
>>> the transfer of the Registry Agreements for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG to 
>>> Ethos Capital. The decision to sell PIR's assets is indeed a matter 
>>> for ISOC to decide. If this is not clear please feel free to edit 
>>> the letter to make this distinction more evident. Thanks!
>>
>> Nobody (to my knowledge) has suggested that a transfer of the 
>> Registry Agreements to Ethos will take place. This would make Ethos 
>> the Contracted Party, but by all accounts I’ve seen, they will still 
>> remain with PIR.
>>
>> But yes…, I do agree that this might qualify as an indirect change of 
>> control.
>>
>> The way that the letter is currently worded suggests that the NCSG 
>> will ask the ICANN Board to terminate PIR’s Registry Agreements, and 
>> transfer them to another entity.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191206/896c127d/attachment.htm>