We don=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99t_?=have a representative on PIR Advisory Council

[farzaneh badii]

All,

It is unfortunate but PIR decided not to appoint any of the candidates we
put forward as NCSG to the Advisory Council. PIR over time made our role
weaker in its governance. Something our leaders should really pay attention
to. I raised concern and IGP wrote a blog about it. But if we don’t pay
attention, we will see our role more and more diminished in this space.

IGP blog:
Dot ORG Snubs Noncommercials

The Public Interest Registry, which was awarded the .ORG domain based on
promises that it would support noncommercial participants in the ICANN
process
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section7.html>,
has progressively backed away from supporting the official noncommercial
constituencies in ICANN. It took the latest step recently, refusing to
appoint any representatives nominated by the Noncommercial Stakeholders
Group <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>(NCSG)
to its Advisory Board. PIR’s Advisory Board has no real power and is
largely honorary anyway, but it originally set aside a dedicated slot on
the AC for NCUC. That precedent just ended. PIR justifies this by claiming
that it chose AC members based on their “quality” not on who they
represent. But this is exactly the problem: PIR’s council is just a bunch
of people the PIR board likes and feels comfortable with, they are not
independent representatives of .ORG users who are involved in the ICANN
process. PIR has turned its appointment process into a beauty contest and
its Advisory Council into a unilaterally-bestowed privilege that allows it
to filter out anyone who might talk back.

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20221207/b95cc090/attachment.htm>