Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Wisdom Donkor]

Very much agree with you Sam and Milton.
ICANN needs to trade cautiously on the red lines.


*WISDOM DONKOR*
President & CEO
Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org  / www.afrigeocon.org
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk
__________________________________________________
Specialization:
E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet
Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber
Security,  Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning &
Management,


On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 2:50 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/b60e250f/attachment.htm>