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 <[log in to unmask]>
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       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?
> 
> 
> 
>