<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Il 2020-01-09 22:58 Greg Shatan ha scritto:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">The "White Knight" looks more like a "Dark Prince":</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/01/08/new-org-stewards-or-vultures-circling/">https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/01/08/new-org-stewards-or-vultures-circling/</a></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Among many other things, the fact that Bill Woodcock is in this group might explain the bizarre "analysis" that PCH circulated a few weeks ago...</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">As I said, I have not spoken to anyone in the "alternative" group so I do not know their motivations. But then, if you are afraid that this discussion is only attracting "more vultures", why doesn't the At Large focus on ensuring that the future of .org is not decided through lobbying wars among insiders, but through a transparent process?</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">In case the discussion on who manages .org gets reopened (not a likely case, IMHO, but the only one that would allow to make things substantially better, as frankly I think that, in the Ethos arrangement, some kind of board with people from the At Large and other community groups would just be a fig leaf), ICANN should just put it out for bidding with a few conditions:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">- only non-profit applicants</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">- some form of registrant representation at the policy board level</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">- no price increases unless justified by running cost increases or necessary investment</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">- a fixed additional percentage on top of the costs should be collected and used for the IETF and other community projects</div>
<br class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" />
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">That would IMHO be a proposal that could present a substantially different way of running .org in the public interest.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Otherwise, I agree that there is a risk to just watch a beauty contest among commercial groups thinly masqueraded as benefactors.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Ciao,</div>
<span class="sig">-- <br /> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------<br /> --------> now blogging & more at <a href="http://bertola.eu/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://bertola.eu/</a> <--------</span></div>
</body></html>