Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary

[Wisdom Donkor]

Thanks  Sam elaborating on Milton's draft proposal, you have rely made it
easier for me to understand
Thanks very much Stephanie for all the guidance.


*WISDOM DONKOR*
President & CEO
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk
__________________________________________________
Specialization:
E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet
Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber
Security,  Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning &
Management,



On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:59 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I think Sam is raising an important point here, and support its
> inclusion.  I would also like to respond to Milton's comment that we have
> been wasting time....
>
> I think we have had a detailed, reasoned, and [mostly] polite and
> respectful discussion on an important issue.  That issue is complex to many
> of us who have not been following ICANN issues for the past twenty years,
> so regardless of whether those who are experts in the field think it was
> useful, I would like to remind us that one of the purposes of this list is
> to help our members get up to speed on the issues.  For those who don't
> know where to look for other views, it is helpful to post those other
> views, whether we hold them or not.  Those who follow the governance list
> are aware that there  there has been an interesting parallel discussion
> which has also been informative and [IMHO] largely polite and constructive.
>
> Finally I have a question.  What do our Council members think?  There is a
> Council meeting coming up this week...has the matter surfaced there at all?
>
> I agree with Milton that we should finalize a draft and get agreement on
> sending it.  There should be a policy committee meeting coming up this week.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2019-12-08 11:26, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> 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/fb17a792/attachment.htm>