Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Wisdom Donkor]

Dear Martin,
I dont think so, the issue at hand is with the deal, how transparent the
deal is, and why a for profit organisation.
Transparency is lacking in this whole deal.

This is a sensitive issue i think ICANN itself need to take it time to deal
with in order not to step on any toes.





*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 Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:50 PM Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> We cannot force isoc to keep the operation is they don't want to. We can
> demand they find a new operating company that reasonableness keeps things
> stable, secure, etc. That's the only debate we can give.
>
> We should be asking icann how come they raised the price caps and half of
> the management team is on the other side of this deal. How that is
> unethical to put a word to it.
>
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 8:54 AM Scott Johnson <scott at gnuveau.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I would say that until this is a known quantity, it will be very
>> difficult
>> to get the parties to the transaction to concede to anything.  However,
>> if
>> this is a well defined list of safeguards, etc. to protect .org, then it
>> is quite possible that the deal can be shaped to incorporate such
>> safeguards.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>
>> > Scott,
>> >
>> > Good question. Some of us have tried to get a discussion going about the
>> > exact nature of the entity that comes out of the Ethos Capital purchase
>> of
>> > PIR. Would it be a benefit corporation or a "Certified" B Corp LLC, or
>> > what? Another question is around the actual powers of any Advisory
>> > Committee, especially in light of the fact that PIR kept its Advisory
>> > Committee in the dark with regard to the sale itself. A third question
>> > (for the lawyers among us) is are there specific terms in the .org
>> > registry contract that ICANN can insist on that improve the protection
>> of
>> > the public interest?
>> >
>> > To date, in the case of Ethos Capital there has been no clarification
>> > about the benefit corporation/LLC/B Corp Certification area. There have
>> > been only good will promises with regard to an Advisory Committee, and
>> no
>> > discussion about what ICANN could, or could not, put in the .org
>> registry
>> > contract.
>> >
>> > To put it bluntly, Ethos Capital has said "Trust us", some (Vint Cerf)
>> > have said "Trust them", and a lot of us have said "We are unhappy",
>> others
>> > have said "We too are interested in buying PIR".
>> >
>> > Nobody, including ICANN org and the Board, has really addressed your
>> core
>> > question.
>> >
>> > Sam Lanfranco
>> >       ---- Original Message ----
>> >       From: Scott Johnson <scott at GNUVEAU.NET>
>> >       To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >       Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 10:36 PM
>> >       Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
>> >
>> >       Has anyone clearly defined a set of circumstances whereby the
>> >       sale of PIR
>> >       to $ANYBUYER would be acceptable by the consensus of relevant
>> >       parties?
>> >       Put another way, what specific performance on the part of
>> >       buyer and
>> >       seller would be required to make any such transition
>> >       comfortable moving
>> >       forward?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200117/2b7356b4/attachment.htm>