Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Wisdom,
	 Think it in terms of what you can or not enforce in this case. ISOC has the right to sell PIR, PIR has the right and obligation to operate .org, unless it wishes to terminate the agreement. ICANN has a very little say in case PIR changes it control, which is happening in this case. There ICANN can ask for info and only oppose for reasonable concerns. 
	We need to define that and quick, because ICANN has a deadline to raise the concern. Concern that is not absolute, if PIR shows that has addressed reasonably the concerns then ICANN cannot oppose for eternity. So, we need to tell ICANN what we think a reasonable PIR has to look like under the new control. ICANN can negotiate those terms and the new PIR should continue serving with new limits. 
	It is not desirable to have ISOC, against their will, retain and operate such a delicate thing like a registry. If they want out, and they find a way to go out that fulfils the .org community needs, we should let them go. 
	Unluckily, the former director of ICANN don’t have a legal statue to not enter in this types of deals (I think there should be limits), and it is very suspicious on how ICANN took away the price caps just before the sale, but unless we are terminating their contract claiming the renewal is invalid, which is not, then those things cannot stop the .org transfer. So all we can do is open the debate toward more transparency and more limits to ex-icann staff going into business with info and relations that are, to say the leats unethical.

TL;DR: 
	1- We cannot stop forever the sale, we can try to negotiate terms so our concerns on how .org is manage are actually addressed and we can live with it.
	2- The lack of transparency and unethical behaviour are not legally enough to stop the deal, but are politically enough to force icann more transparency and more restrictions to ex-staff conflict of interest.
	3- Like I said before, in NO case we can permit Congress or US, or anywhere, politics get into ICANN. We have a place, process ande scope for government speech and intervention, and there it should remain. 

Best,
Martín


> On 17 Jan 2020, at 10:25, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://www.aodirf.org/>  / www.afrigeocon.org <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:scott at GNUVEAU.NET>>
> >       To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto: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/20200117/5ad36a37/attachment.htm>