Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Wisdom Donkor]

Benjamin, this deal will at all cost catch up with concern government and
other bodies that maters.
Is a big shame, we preach stakeholderism and inclusion, turn round and do
the opposite.

*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 Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200107/6f392dd3/attachment.htm>