[article] Internet world despairs as non-profit .org sold for $$$$ to private equity firm, price caps axed

[Ekue Farell Folly]

Amr,

Just one question for my understanding.

If according to the procedures, the NCSG could not send the so-said 
letter to the ICANN board, could the the NCSG does something
through the GNSO as a member of the Empowered Community? I am not
saying that we should write such a letter but if we all agree to do
so and the obstacle is only procedural, then perharps this
possibility could help.




On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 12:22 +0000, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> 
> I’m gong to be awfully blunt in my response to your suggestions,
> but please understand, that I do this only to make a point as
> clearly as I can.
> 
> For years, the NCSG has taken principled stands on what the
> limitations of ICANN’s powers and mission should be, in order to
> not allow the Org to put undue pressure on gTLD policy
> development, and to adhere to due process. For the NCSG to send
> the ICANN Board a letter asking them to do what you’ve proposed
> would undermine a lot of good work done in the past.
> 
> A couple of assumptions on my part:
> 
> 1. That when you say the NCSG should send a letter to “the
> board”, I assume you mean the ICANN Board.
> 2. That you’re asking ICANN Org to exercise its power using
> article 7.5 of the .org Registry Agreement.
> 
> While asking the ICANN Board to take this matter up as you
> suggest might seem tactically sound in the short term, it is
> strategically a bad thing in the long run. Unless you can point
> to contractual provisions that provide ICANN Org with a
> legitimate reason to delay or terminate PIR’s contract, what
> EXACTLY are you asking them to do? On what basis should or can
> ICANN require that PIR remain a not-for-profit? I won’t even get
> in to the price cap issue, as I think I’ve made tested the
> patience of many of our members discussing this in the recent
> past. 
> 
> When we work on policy development at ICANN, we do so with the
> understanding that there is a process in place, and that all
> actors involved are required to adhere to it. This is true for
> community SOs and ACs, ICANN Org as well as the Board. We also
> tend to build on past policy development efforts as a means of
> justifying what we advocate for, and what we push back against.
> Think back to the rage we expressed when ICANN over-reached, and
> introduced TM+50 in the Trademark Clearinghouse in blatant
> disregard for developed policy, or when we more recently objected
> to introduction of the URS in the new .org Registry Agreement.
> Ask anyone who’s worked on Rights Protection Mechanisms or gTLD
> Registration Data policies over the years.
> 
> NCSG continually demanding that due process be observed and
> appropriate limitation of ICANN’s power, I’d hope, is part of
> NCSG’s identity and long-term objectives. Yet…, in the absence of
> justification to your requests below, I’d say that you are
> proposing that we abandon some of our principles. Aren’t
> principles only truly so when we stick to them when it is
> inconvenient for us to do so? We can’t exactly drop them, then
> pick them up again when it’s politically convenient for us to do
> so, can we?
> 
> To me, what you are suggesting does the opposite of introducing
> or restoring integrity to any ICANN processes. It calls for us to
> abandon it.
> 
> I personally have .org domain names registered, and am not at all
> pleased about its likely change of status from a NFP to a For-
> Profit org, but asking the ICANN Board to intervene on this imo
> opinion is not a good thing. Unless, of course, the change in
> status of PIR somehow conflicts with any obligations they have
> towards ICANN, but you haven’t pointed any out, and I have been
> unable to identify any conflicts with obligations so far (but I
> have tried to find any that might be out there).
> 
> My suggestion to you and others would be to take this up with the
> folks we really need to take it up with - ISOC's senior
> management and ISOC’s Board of Trustees. They are the ones who
> are in a position to address the requests you’ve proposed, and
> they’re the ones who've created this whole situation to begin
> with.
> 
> End of blunt response, at least for now. ;-)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:11 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Stephanie, et. al.,
> > 
> > I will not be at the IGF (darn budget constraint....I should
> > have bought PIR (-:)) . Here is what I would suggest:
> > 
> > I am not sure how we get THERE from HERE, but I think a letter
> > to the board should focus on three aspects of the situation. 
> > First, that the impending sale be delayed (if not terminated). 
> > Second, that PIR as the registry owner of .org should remain a
> > not-for-profit entity, whomever owns it
> > Third, the decision to uncap .org registration fees be
> > revisited to look at a decision with more constraints with
> > regard to fee increases.
> > Somehow we have to restore integrity to the process, and in
> > passing restore some of the tarnished dignity of ICANN.
> > 
> > Sam L. 
> > 
> > > ---- Original Message ----
> > > From: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>
> > > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > > Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 12:59 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [article] Internet world despairs as non-profit
> > > .org sold for $$$$ to private equity firm, price caps axed
> > > 
> > > Lets try to get a draft out today so that you folks can meet
> > > and finalize in Berlin.
> > > Stephanie Perrin
> > > NCSG Chair
> > >  <rest deleted>
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191122/5ac74b65/attachment.htm>