Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele]

I share your sentiments Milton and Sam.

>From a different lens on this matter, the fear of political pressure might
get ICANN org to be on it's toes.

However, much of the effort to achieve a specific goal to an objective
which is not clearly defined for an advocacy angle on this specific issue.
Although I understand advocacy is beyond the scope of NCSG but if we are
passionate about the the non sale of the dot ORG, what stops us?

I'm looking forward to seeing us in NCSG carry out more advocacy on this
aside than the traditional publishing of public comment.



Caleb Ogundele

________________

Sent with thumbs from a small screen mobile device.

Pelase exsuce typos adn errosr.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 3:49 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> 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 <dgdorothydg at GMAIL.COM>
> *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/20200105/42e2adb1/attachment.htm>