Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Sam Lanfranco]

This is more than a "slippery slope", it is a risky precipice over which
ICANN does not want to fall. The issues here need to be addressed within
the multistakeholder mechanisms of ICANN. Allowing the U.S. Congress to
play a role would result in significant damage to ICANN's independence and
multistakeholder processes. This needs to be addressed from within, even if
that exposes shortcomings in ICANN's internal mechanisms and processes. 
What is still lacking is a strategic objective, and outcome, to be pursued
and supported. What exactly are "we" (NCSG) asking be done here? One "ask"
is the choice of venue and mechanism. Via the "Empowered Community"? Other
avenues?. The other "ask" is what is the objective here. I think we all
agree that any strategy that involves ISOC retaining PIR is a non-option.
That would be equally damaging on several fronts, both for ISOC and for
ICANN and ICANN-registry relations. What is the elephant in the room here?
I think for all of us that "elephant" is a lack of trust in the promises of
Ethos Capital with regard to its intentions on how it would run PIR and the
.org registry. 
So what are NCSG's options? What should we be thinking about as we start to
build a consensus NCSG response. The first, in my view, it for us to
confirm to ourselves that objecting to any ISOC sale of PIR is not a
position that should be taken. The second, not in the order that first
comes to mind, it to think through what is seen as a desirable outcome, and
the third is what ICANN mechanisms should be used to pursue that outcome.
We need a discussion on What and How in order to form any response. Looking
at the views of others, and at our views expressed elsewhere, helps but we
need a consensus building dialogue here so that any pen holders for Rafik's
google-docs NCSG comment letter produce a comment that is stakeholder
informed. 
I have suggested elsewhere that there are several positions we might
consider and push ICANN to consider. One is whomever the buyer there are
safeguards built into the sale, most desirably preserving PIR as a
non-profit or incorporated as a Benefit Corporation, no matter who the
buyer is. The other, less likely, is seeking to re-open that buyer search
to include sovereign funds, charitable foundations, and the like. We need a
discussion here. It is not enough to simply inform ourselves about who may
agree with our concerns. What are we recommending?
Sam Lanfranco, NCSG/NPOC

---- Original Message ----
From: dorothy g 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

I agree slippery slope

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200105/c1d9f3bd/attachment.htm>