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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Farrell:
Amr did not say that we CANNOT send the so-said letter to the ICANN Board.
He said that he doesn’t want us to. We can do it if we decide to. And if NCSG as a whole does not agree to do it, then NCUC can do it.

Since Amr is not a member of NCUC, for example, he would not be able to stand in the way of a consensus within NCUC.

Right, Amr? ;-)

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Ekue Farell Folly
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 9:54 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [article] Internet world despairs as non-profit .org sold for $$$$ to private equity firm, price caps axed

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<mailto: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<mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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/d2425e97/attachment.htm>