Milton's Dec 8th Draft & Commentary

Mon Dec 9 08:59:08 EET 2019

I also align with this letter, however I just have some concern playing in
my head.
How does this process get the representation of the about 10 million
registrants of the .org TLD , knowing fully that many of them don't even
participate in the IG processes? It is just a question in my head.

However this is a good approach compared to others.

Regards,
Benjamin

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 2:43 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m not surprised this hasn’t come up in GNSO Council discussions. I’m
> guessing that Council members are quite aware of what’s going on, but so
> far, nothing in this whole saga has much to do with the Council’s remit of
> managing gTLD policy development (or any other one I can think of).
>
> I also wouldn’t be surprised if this does end up on the Council’s agenda,
> following a comment from the NCSG to the ICANN Board. We are after all
> discussing transmitting changes we would like to see made to the .org
> Registry Agreement. This is something the GNSO Council may be interested in
> weighing in on, and also might be something the ICANN Board would like to
> hear from the GNSO on, but I’m speculating.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 8, 2019, at 10:46 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191209/5723f9c8/attachment.htm>