Amr,
Thank you for your long and thoughtful comments. I take them as
measured and not blunt.
My response will be brief. My comments are those of a stakeholder
interested in both the integrity of the Internet ecosystem, and the
integrity of ISOC and will have collateral damage on ICANN (as org,
Board, and a community). In my view all three have been damaged in
this episode
What should and can be done about the current situation re: PIR and
.org is not all all clear. I fully agree with your suggestion that
the ISOC Board should be in the hot seat here. The history of who did
what and who knew what when, as the decision was made to remove the
price cap, and what followed, is yet to be known.
I have said what I think needed to be said and I will leave what
follows to the dynamics of the processes that may or may not unfold.
Again, Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
Sam L.
Quoting Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I’m gong to be awfully blunt in my response to your suggestions,
> but please understand, that I do this only to make a point as
> clearly as I can.
>
> For years, the NCSG has taken principled stands on what the
> limitations of ICANN’s powers and mission should be, in order to
> not allow the Org to put undue pressure on gTLD policy development,
> and to adhere to due process. For the NCSG to send the ICANN Board
> a letter asking them to do what you’ve proposed would undermine a
> lot of good work done in the past.
>
> A couple of assumptions on my part:
>
> 1. That when you say the NCSG should send a letter to “the
> board”, I assume you mean the ICANN Board.
> 2. That you’re asking ICANN Org to exercise its power using
> article 7.5 of the [.org Registry
>
Agreement](https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm).
>
> While asking the ICANN Board to take this matter up as you suggest
> might seem tactically sound in the short term, it is strategically
> a bad thing in the long run. Unless you can point to contractual
> provisions that provide ICANN Org with a legitimate reason to delay
> or terminate PIR’s contract, what EXACTLY are you asking them to
> do? On what basis should or can ICANN require that PIR remain a
> not-for-profit? I won’t even get in to the price cap issue, as I
> think I’ve made tested the patience of many of our members
> discussing this in the recent past.
>
> When we work on policy development at ICANN, we do so with the
> understanding that there is a process in place, and that all actors
> involved are required to adhere to it. This is true for community
> SOs and ACs, ICANN Org as well as the Board. We also tend to build
> on past policy development efforts as a means of justifying what we
> advocate for, and what we push back against. Think back to the rage
> we expressed when ICANN over-reached, and introduced TM+50 in the
> Trademark Clearinghouse in blatant disregard for developed policy,
> or when we more recently objected to introduction of the URS in the
> new .org Registry Agreement. Ask anyone who’s worked on Rights
> Protection Mechanisms or gTLD Registration Data policies over the
> years.
>
> NCSG continually demanding that due process be observed and
> appropriate limitation of ICANN’s power, I’d hope, is part of
> NCSG’s identity and long-term objectives. Yet…, in the absence
> of justification to your requests below, I’d say that you are
> proposing that we abandon some of our principles. Aren’t
> principles only truly so when we stick to them when it is
> inconvenient for us to do so? We can’t exactly drop them, then
> pick them up again when it’s politically convenient for us to do
> so, can we?
>
> To me, what you are suggesting does the opposite of introducing or
> restoring integrity to any ICANN processes. It calls for us to
> abandon it.
>
> I personally have .org domain names registered, and am not at all
> pleased about its likely change of status from a NFP to a
> For-Profit org, but asking the ICANN Board to intervene on this imo
> opinion is not a good thing. Unless, of course, the change in
> status of PIR somehow conflicts with any obligations they have
> towards ICANN, but you haven’t pointed any out, and I have been
> unable to identify any conflicts with obligations so far (but I
> have tried to find any that might be out there).
>
> My suggestion to you and others would be to take this up with the
> folks we really need to take it up with - ISOC's senior management
> and ISOC’s Board of Trustees. They are the ones who are in a
> position to address the requests you’ve proposed, and they’re
> the ones who've created this whole situation to begin with.
>
> End of blunt response, at least for now. ;-)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:11 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Stephanie, et. al.,
> >
> > I will not be at the IGF (darn budget constraint....I should have
> bought PIR (-:)) . Here is what I would suggest:
> >
> > I am not sure how we get THERE from HERE, but I think a letter to
> the board should focus on three aspects of the situation.
> >
> > - First, that the impending sale be delayed (if not terminated).
> > - Second, that PIR as the registry owner of .org should remain a
> not-for-profit entity, whomever owns it
> > - Third, the decision to uncap .org registration fees be
> revisited to look at a decision with more constraints with regard
> to fee increases.
> >
> > Somehow we have to restore integrity to the process, and in
> passing restore some of the tarnished dignity of ICANN.
> >
> > Sam L.
> >
> >> ---- Original Message ----
> >> From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2019, 12:59 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [article] Internet world despairs as non-profit
> .org sold for $$$$ to private equity firm, price caps axed
> >>
> >> Lets try to get a draft out today so that you folks can meet and
> finalize in Berlin.
> >>
> >> Stephanie Perrin
> >>
> >> NCSG Chair
> >>
> >> <rest deleted>
----------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
----------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852
|
