Martin,
I am not sure this amount of reasonable, logical and coherent logic is
allowed in an ICANN context. :)
Julf
On 17-01-2020 19:27, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[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?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
|
