Topics to Discuss with the Board at ICANN67: CaNCUN

[Hakikur Rahman]

In support of the question.

Hakikur Rahman


On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 7:42 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Amir,
>
> Thanks for joining in the discussion and helping to focus the possible
> questions around our constituency concerns. You did a good job of starting
> the focus with your comments. I will touch on them lightly, in hopes that
> others will join in the discussion.
>
> First, what we are not interested in here. While there are a lot of
> questions about how both ISOC and PIR handled their processes, those are
> not of concern to us as stakeholder groups and constituencies within ICANN.
> There are questions about the exact nature of the company to be formed by
> Ethos Capital, the private capital company acquiring the .org registry.
> They are not about who the buyers are but concern the nature of public
> interest protections “baked into” the legal structure of the buying country.
>
> Second, you are right in focusing on ICANN’s handling (or not handling)
> issues around the registry transfer process. Here are several, in no order
> of importance. Other colleagues may have more, and comments and discussion
> are urged.
>
> A key starting point issue is does ICANN sees the public interest element
> of the .org registry as important. If it does not, then this is simply a
> registry transfer. Many of us feel that ICANN should address that issue and
> consult and dialogue with its stakeholders. It has done a poor job of that
> to date, and there is a real risk of damaging ICANN’s multistakeholder
> image around this episode.
>
> If ICANN does consider the public interest element of the transfer of the
> .org registry to a private capital firm as important, the next question is
> what can ICANN do to ensure that this sale, and any subsequent sale of the
> .org registry carry some degree of public interest protection.
>
> Ethos Capital has made promises, but lawyers are quick to point out that
> keeping promises depends on circumstances. Lawyers say: “Get it in the
> contact”. To date we are left in the dark about any thoughts, or
> negotiations, on contract wording.
>
> Also, there is some ambiguity regarding the actual nature of Ethos
> Capital. It is apparently an LLC, a very limited form of corporation. It is
> not clear if it will be a legal Benefit Corporation, or simply have B Corp
> (Trustmark) certification from B Lab. ICANN should legitimately want to
> know the exact nature of the buying entity since that impacts on public
> interest protection.
>
> So, focusing on issues of appropriate .org registry contract language, the
> exact nature of the buying entity, and why ICANN has approached the sale
> with a lack of stakeholder consultation should serve as the basis for some
> highly focused question.
>
> We would hope that we get better answers than those found in the Board’s
> response to the NCSG letter you refer to. Lastly, I would at least end with
> the open-ended question about lessons learned. Hopefully they have learned
> something and would have something to say on that topic.
>
> Thanks for helping move this episode forward. I hope others will join in
> to help clarify the issues here, our concerns, and the appropriate
> questions to put before the Board.
>
> Sam Lanfranco (NPOC)
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
> *From*: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA>
> *To*: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Sent*: Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 7:21 AM
> *Subject*: Re: Topics to Discuss with the Board at ICANN67: CaNCUN
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Would you mind elaborating on your proposal a little more? If you have
> specific issues you’d like to raise with the ICANN Board, what are they? In
> other words, what is the objective in raising the topic with them?
>
> To be clear, I’m not opposed to this being a topic of discussion during
> our meeting with the Board, or anything, but if we raise any topic (this or
> others) at all, I’d think it’d be sensible to have specific questions,
> which when asked would provide clarity on issues or Board/Org views we’re
> having trouble divining ourselves. What I don’t think this should be is an
> open-ended question we pose to them as “what lessons have been learned”,
> and then have the little time we have with them be used up by them sharing
> anecdotal views, which will likely be irrelevant to us.
>
> I’m also not clear on the issues with the process we need to raise either?
> Is it ICANN’s Registry Transition Process you believe to be mishandled,
> ISOC’s process to sell PIR, or something else possibly?
>
> IMO, the Registry Transition Process is likely the issue we need to focus
> on the most (ISOC’s process to sell PIR is none of ICANN’s business), and
> we need to communicate to the Board once more that ICANN needs to recognize
> that as part of that process, there is a need to consult with a relevant
> community representing civil society registrants of .org domain names.
>
> Additionally, we might want to bring up where we might feel that the
> Board’s response to the NCSG letter on the topic might have been
> underwhelming.
>
> Both of these need to be fleshed out a little more, but in general, we
> need to develop our discussion points with a little more granularity than
> “what lessons have been learned”.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 5, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA> wrote:
>
> I would like to suggest that the following topic be considered for a
> discussion with the ICANN Board.
>
>
>    - *What lessons have been learned by stakeholders and the Board in the
>    matter of the proposed sale of PIR and the .org registry?*
>
> I pose the question because I believe that how the process has been
> handled constitutes a real threat to ICANN's reputation, and viability, as
> a multistakeholder organization.
>
> Sam Lanfranco (NPOC)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200208/f62f9776/attachment.htm>