Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary

[Joan Kerr]

Hello everyone,

I've a few suggestions to the google doc
Thanks

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 4:24 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Probably should have included the link in that message:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zfaTlkIUZEsNMOQljy43SQSXZUQBmgFSJYVnjGgpYp8/edit?ts=5decb3cf#
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of
> Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 8, 2019 4:20 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject:* Re: Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary
>
> OK, we have made several modifications and it seems we are very close to
> an agreement. Can I ask the Policy Committee to look at the draft as it now
> stands so as to get through the process as quickly as possible?
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Rafik
> Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 8, 2019 3:46 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject:* Re: Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary
>
> Hi,
>
> To respond quickly to Stephanie question, the topic didn't surface in
> council and I doubt it will as it is not related to GNSO council remit and
> unlikely contracted party will be keen to discuss such matter in council.
> I cannot speak for other councillors positions. For myself, I listened to
> the arguments elaborated in several venues and not necessarily buying all
> of them. I prefer to stick to what matters more from a NCSG standpoint in
> ICANN context and think approach suggested in letter around adding
> safeguards in registry agreement makes sense.
>
> We don't have NCSG policy call this week because the GNSO council meeting
> is next week.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019, 03:58 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

Joan Kerr, Entrepreneur, Artist, Humanitarian

_____________________________________

Chair, Climate Smart Victory Garden Team

Chair, ICANN, Not for Profit Operations Constituency

Chair, IEEE Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

Chair, Science for Peace, Climate Smart Victory Gardens

Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee

Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Canada

UN WSIS Award Recipient, for Content & Creativity

Durham Region Recipient, Community Partnership Award

Founder, Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities

www.joankerr.ca, www.fbsc.org

Skype: joankerr_fbsc

1-416-907-0783
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191208/00d715e9/attachment.htm>