Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Dear All,
I think we are back at the beginning again. If we resonate with the demands
of the senators, we should just copy them and advocate for them as well.
I align with everyone that we should avoid getting any form of govt
interference in this matter.
It appears this is a matter very close to the heart of our constituency,
hence it should form the core of our discussion and should climax at
ICANN67.

Just my thoughts,
Benjamin



On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:19 AM Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org> wrote:

> If we are to avoid counterproductive actions by the US government, I think
> it's imperative that ICANN act quickly and decisively to address the
> problem. It's clear to me that the .org registry cannot remain with ISOC.
> But it's equally clear that Ethos Capital, a private equity fund with no
> track record of operating an important component of the global Internet,
> cannot be trusted to safeguard the interests of noncommercial registrants
> for the long term. Also, the secretive nature of the sale--PIR still has
> not responded to ICANN's request for information of 9 December--shows
> further why ICANN needs to halt the sale. Whether Ethos Capital can earn
> the trust of the community remains to be seen.
>
> In the meantime, ISOC and Ethos are rushing ahead with the sale. They
> intend to complete it by April. That's why NCSG needs to recommend bold
> action, quickly. I agree with Caleb that action can go beyond mere public
> comment. ICANN has the contractual power to halt the change in control of
> the .org registry, but ICANN must act soon. I support invoking the
> Empowered Community, but direct engagement with the ICANN Board and top
> staff will also be crucial.
>
> Beyond that, I think NCSG should lay out a set of binding constraints that
> the .org registry operator must adhere to, without regard to who that
> operator is. Those should include, at minimum, avoidance of price gouging
> and guarantees against censorship, whether private or government-directed.
> If Ethos Capital agrees to those constraints, then the sale can proceed. If
> not, another more trusted organization will need to be found to run the
> registry.
>
> Whatever we do, let's do it soon.
>
> Mitch Stoltz
> Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
>
> On 1/5/20 6:48 AM, Sam Lanfranco 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> <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/20200106/af326cd9/attachment.htm>