Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary

[Sam Lanfranco]

	I support the approach taken by Milton in his proposed draft of today (Dev
8th). I add the following commentary. 

	Milton’s draft says: “We do not begrudge ISOC its need to secure its
financial future and eliminate conflicts of interest”. This is one area
where we should agree. Ethos Capital may not be the only way to achieve
this, or there may be ways to constrain Ethos Capital to run PIR in the
public interest. We need wider engaged stakeholder discussion at this
point. As well, how the processed unfolded with ICANN’s cap removal,
ISOC’s sale strategy, and who knew what when with Ethos Capital, is a
story to be ferreted out and told by others. It should not be NCSG's
primary concern. 
	We should respect ISOC’s right to secure its future. Our primary worry
is about the future of PIR and its registries, and Ethos Capital’s actual
behavior as the potential owner. Our primary concern is what can be done to
protect the integrity of the PIR’s registries, and the interests of their
domain name holder community.  

	We, as NCSG, are asking ICANN and its constituencies to listen to our
concerns. At the same time we, as stakeholders, should be asking ISOC, its
chapters, domain name holders and concerned communities in general, as well
as Ethos Capital in particular, to participate in meaningful dialogue with
respect to a satisfactory resolution of the issues around the future
behavior of PIR and its registries. 

	As for Mitch Stoltz’s suggestion that “ICANN find an appropriate
replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and
.ONG up for public tender.”, we can assemble solutions but I am not sure
if we should be suggesting particular solutions at this point. I would
prefer them to come out of meaningful dialogue.  

	If Ethos Capital purchase remains on the table, I for one will be pushing
for Ethos Capital to commit to making PIR a Benefit Corporation (B Corp).
Many states, and Washington D.C. have legislation that allows incorporation
as a Benefit Corporation [Briefly: B Corp duty is to more widely defined
stakeholders and not primarily to owner profit].  

	Ethos Capital’s proposed B Corp Certification for PIR is not enough. It
is not Benefit Corporation incorporation. Certification is a Trust Mark,
pledging one to “good behavior”, and is granted by the non-profit B Lab
organization’s certification process. The B Lab Trust Mark is best used
on existing companies whose track record can be assessed before issuing
Certification.It would represent nothing more than a promise of “good
behavior” in terms of how Ethos ran PIR. It is not legally binding on
Ethos Capital as an owner of PIR, nor would it be on subsequent owners
should Ethos sell PIR.  

	Benefit Corporation incorporation of PIR is much more binding on Ethos and
subsequent owners of PIR. 

	Sam Lanfranco 
	  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191208/2fb4fca4/attachment.htm>