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

[Mueller, Milton L]

ALAC tagging along), sometimes the CPH – want something. Maybe it’s our turn this time.

I don’t buy this, and am surprised that you do. How about you entertain me with a hypothetical:

Amr:
You misunderstood my message, but it’s my own fault, as the statement above about “our turn” seems to imply that we should want to violate procedure when it’s in our benefit. That’s not what I was saying at all.

I am simply saying that you taking an extremely purist approach to 7.5 and saying we can’t ask ICANN to use it, when there is nothing wrong or unfair about them doing so, doesn’t make sense when ICANN does ignore or bend procedure all the time. You are saying we should be nice and passive when that’s not how the rest of the community plays the game.

So you’re not off the hook. That’s a straw man argument. Let me try to keep you – and everyone else on this list – focused on the agenda I am trying to advance.


1.       We don’t care who owns .Org as long as appropriate protections for registrants are in the RA.

2.       We need to articulate what those protections are. I set out three things:

a.       Content neutrality

b.       Elimination of the URS

c.       Long-term registrations, if not perpetual ones

3.       We try to use the .ORG uproar to get those goals.

Got it? This is what we should be pushing for. Agree or disagree? I am open to any comment or debate on the substance, but for God’s sake let’s unify around a coherent agenda and not just whine.

On substantive maters, your answer is pretty wimpy. You say:

These are all worthy objectives, but I very seriously doubt that ICANN would be motivated to help us achieve any of them,

Why are you so defeatist? Without even trying you’re giving up. Thanks, but no thanks. Help us fight for something. We are building the momentum. We may not succeed but at least we tried. What have you offered as an alternative agenda? What is something that we can achieve here? As far as I can see, you haven’t offered anything.

writing a letter to the Board won’t change that.

Not by itself, but if we articulate a clear policy objective – better RA protections for ORG registrants – we have started a process that may produce good results.

I also don’t see how associating these objectives with a delay or refusal to let the .org Registry Agreement stand helps make any of them a reality.

Really? You don’t see it? Well let me explain it to you. It’s pretty obvious. The only leverage we will have for the foreseeable future over the content of the ORG RA comes from a delay or refusal to let the agreement stand.

But if there is some strategy behind this that I’m missing, I’d be happy to learn more about it.

You just did.
And tell me again, what are you proposing that we do? I didn’t catch that in any of your messages.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191123/278b5f01/attachment.htm>