Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

Sat Jan 11 21:57:47 EET 2020

Hi all, 
	I can only strongly oppose to have the US Congress having a say in this matter. I think more important than .org is to not have th US Government, nor any other, thinking they have some sort of oversee or jurisdiction over what we do. I think NCSG should actually do a statement putting the US Cgonress letter in place, making sure that the line we constantly draw to the GAC is unmistakably clear. 
	
	I can oppose to what happened to .org for many reasons, I can also live with a lot of solutions that include Ethos having it, but I cannot, under any circumstance, live with the fact we have to “converse”, “convince” or “inform” the US congress of what we do. Our legitimacy, ICANN legitimacy, is beyond US government scope, this was the IANA Transition holy grail, that is the primordial fight we need to address in this letter. Can you imagine having the same reaction of the Russian congress? The Chinese gov? The Argentina gov? Is not relevant that they might be viewing thing like us, to some extent. That is a circunstancial coincidence. What this means is far  worse and dangerous than having a for profit PIR that ultimately we can regulate in the next contract renewal, in an already rich and diverse gTLD environment. 

	I urge NCSG PC to put out a word on the letter making sure the letter is only an expression of speech like any other organisation or individual out there, but in no way has a weight, bond or obligation toward the independent ICANN.

	I think Acmes did this in good faith an ignorance, but why did they not come to us for ideas is beyond me. This was a mistake even they will someday understand. Next time a big NGO is eager, finally!, to come to play here, we need to be prepared to give them guidance, at least in forms if not content. 
	
Best,
Martín


> On 10 Jan 2020, at 10:07, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at DNRC.TECH> wrote:
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 
> I would agree that Congressional intervention, e.g., by way of legislation, is not something to be sought.  I also agree that some of the questions in the 3 Senator + 1 Congresswoman letter were very good!
> 
> Best, Kathy
> 
> On 1/9/2020 11:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Kathy
>>  
>> The letter itself is not bad. Actually it poses a number of good points which we have pushed for (e.g., content neutrality).  
>>  
>> While U.S. congress critters have a right to ask questions, we have to be careful about what capacity they are asking in. Insofar as some parties involved are asking for Congressional intervention, a letter from a group of congressional representatives is not a simple matter of them expressing their opinions and concerns, it could be part of a potentially legislative or regulatory process. That does not seem to be the case in this instance, but be aware of crossing that line.
>>  
>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>> School of Public Policy
>> <image001.png>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 3:56 PM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
>>  
>> Hi Milton, 
>> Happy New Year to you and All!  These are busy days with many deadlines. Apologies for the delay in responding to your important email below -- and tx to all who have weighed in.
>> 
>> To your statement that we "went through the IANA transition to liberate DNS governance from a single jurisdiction" and your question am I "comfortable with asking the US Congress to get involved in this" -- I respond:
>> 
>> --> We did go through a transition to ensure that the US Government would no longer be the oversight and veto mechanism of ICANN. Now the US Government is no longer "first among equals," but one of many groups and governments. In a process that impacts 10 million .ORG registrants, and the speech of millions of organizations and individuals, do I think that three Senators and a Congresswomen (including ones with a known interest and expertise in technology oversight and one representing Silicon Valley since 1993) should be stopped from sharing their questions?   No, everyone has a right to be part of the discussion and many are weighing in!
>> 
>> The eloquent NCSG letter which you (Milton) largely penned highlights the commitments made by ICANN, ISOC and PIR at the delegation of .ORG in 2002 which must be honored-- https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/12/11/icann-told-to-make-ethos-capital-conform-to-original-org-rfp-criteria/ <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/12/11/icann-told-to-make-ethos-capital-conform-to-original-org-rfp-criteria/>
>> The SaveDotOrg Petition echoes many of the concerns voiced in the NCSG letter and was sent to ICANN by NCSG member EFF --https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cohn-et-al-to-botterman-et-al-17dec19-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cohn-et-al-to-botterman-et-al-17dec19-en.pdf>
>> The UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right of Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association are asking very important questions of ICANN --https://freedex.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/2015/files/2019/12/OL-OTH-20.12.19-60.2019-ICANN.pdf 
>>  <https://freedex.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/2015/files/2019/12/OL-OTH-20.12.19-60.2019-ICANN.pdf>
>> And the letter you mentioned, from Senators Wyden, Warren, Blumenthal and Congresswoman Eshoo, raises similarly important questions to ISOC, PIR, and Ethos -- https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm <https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm>
>> ***
>> 
>> Further, as you know, the ICANN Board and ICANN Staff did not use the ICANN Multistakeholder Model in dramatically changing the terms of the .ORG contract this past summer (and the rights of the 10 million .org registrants -- which include virtually all of us on this list).  Via private contract, ICANN ran roughshod over the Multikstakeholder process and extended the Uniform Rapid Suspension to .ORG (a domain name dispute policy never intended for legacy names or the complexities of noncommercial/commercial disputes) and allowed the create of private rules of content -- the type in which Jon Nevett, former co-founder of Donuts and now President of PIR, delights. These terms are a danger to all .ORG registrants, particularly longtime organizations with well-established websites which criticize and critique governments and corporation.  ICANN Staff ignored comment during the preparation of this contract -- under the guise that "it's a private contract and they negotiate any terms they want" -- and then ignored 3200+ comments opposing the new .ORG agreement. I'm not sure ICANN is paying much attention, if any, to the Multistakeholder process.
>> 
>> So do I believe that organizations, individuals, UN representatives and even Senators and Congresswomen. have the right to raise their voices and join those asking questions of ICANN, ISOC, PIR and Ethos, absolutely. Frankly, I think the whole world should be raising their voices!
>> 
>> Best, Kathy
>> On 1/3/2020 8:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> 
>> Kathy,
>> I am not at all comfortable with asking the U.S. Congress to get involved in this. 
>> Are you? When Access Now called for Congress to get involved it was clearly due to their lack of experience and knowledge of the IG/ICANN space. We went through the IANA transition to liberate DNS governance from a single jurisdiction. If we call them back in then what do we say when the IPR interests ask for legislation regarding Whois? 
>>  
>> --MM
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 8:38 AM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> Subject: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
>>  
>> Hi All,
>>  
>> Happy New Year!!  I don't think this has been posted on this list yet. On 12/23, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, with Representative Anna Eshoo wrote a letter to PIR, Ethos Capital and ISOC questioning whether nonprofit groups, free speech and internet users would be harmed selling control of .ORG domains to a private equity firm.  It's a good letter that shows their staff did some in depth research.
>>  
>> Overview webpage: 
>> https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm <https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm> 
>>  
>>  
>> Letter itself:
>> https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/122319%20RW%20Letter%20to%20PIR%20ISOC%20Ethos.pdf <https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/122319%20RW%20Letter%20to%20PIR%20ISOC%20Ethos.pdf>
>>  
>> Best,
>> Kathy (Kleiman)
>> -- 
>> Kathy Kleiman
>> President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
> -- 
> Kathy Kleiman
> President, Domain Name Rights Coalition

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200111/46d635a8/attachment.htm>