<div dir="ltr">Hey Bill, <div><br></div><div>Yes, I see the distinction in your word suggestion, however, I wonder if the wording from the ICANN letter sufficiently represents that distinction already. <div><br></div><div>I have to trust the ICANN lawyers approved the wording to PIR. So, I see no reason why we can't piggyback on ICANN's words which likely already account for the distinction you're trying to make ... and it's simpler to for a human to understand. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't want to get caught up in a discussion on wording at this stage. I think we both agree on the general idea of what needs to be tested for consensus. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers!</div><div>David<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Bill Jouris <<a href="mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com">b_jouris@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">Hi David, </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">My hope is to avoid getting into an argument over whether ICANN has any standing to approve or object to ISOC's sale of their asset. But making clear that ICANN's focus is on who ultimately administers .org, rather than on the sale per se. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Does that help?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Regards</div><div dir="ltr">Bill Jouris</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yahoo_quoted_0627016125">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:39:01 PM PST, David Mackey <<a href="mailto:mackey361@gmail.com" target="_blank">mackey361@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895"><div><div dir="ltr">Bill, <div><br clear="none"></div><div>Interesting wording. I think I understand the nuance you've added, but I just want to double check why your wording is better than the simpler phrase used by ICANN? <div><br clear="none"></div><div>Having said that, it may not be wise to go too far into the wording before consensus is understood. Can we find a general phrase to build consensus on, and then if consensus is achieved move on the find best final wording?</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Cheers!</div><div>David</div></div></div><br clear="none"><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895yqt76494"><div><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Bill Jouris <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com" target="_blank">b_jouris@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">As David says, wording is important. Let me suggest the following: </div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div dir="ltr">ICANN makes no objection to the transfer of control of PIR, <i>once alternative arrangements are in place for the administration of the .org TLD</i>. PIR is ISOC's property, and they can dispose of it as they wish. But administration of .org is not an asset available for sale to novel organizations. </div></div></blockquote><div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I think that makes the necessary distinction between what is ICANN's interest and what is not. (Granted, PIR may have minimal value without the authority to administer .org. That, however, is not our concern.) </div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Regards, </div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Bill Jouris</div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895gmail-m_-1103495470155162090yahoo_quoted_0391033205">
<div>
<div>
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:22:46 PM PST, David Mackey <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:mackey361@gmail.com" target="_blank">mackey361@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895gmail-m_-1103495470155162090yiv7738021048"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Bill, <div><br clear="none"></div><div>Fair enough. Wording is important at this point. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>For the best wording, it might be a good idea to refer to the <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-to-pir-17jan20-en.pdf" target="_blank">letter from ICANN </a>to PIR that delayed the decision date. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>I believe the wording is "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="background-color:inherit">ICANN's request for additional information will not extend the 17 February 2020 deadline for ICANN to provide or withhold consent to PIR’s proposed change of control."</font></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="background-color:inherit"><br clear="none"></font></span></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">If you accept the wording from that document, then the specific question for consensus in our group is ...</font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif"><br clear="none"></font></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif" style="background-color:inherit">Can we find out how many people in our group favour that "ICANN should withhold consent to </font></span><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">PIR’s proposed change of control"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">?</span></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br clear="none"></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Cheers!</span></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">David</span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div><br clear="none"><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895gmail-m_-1103495470155162090yiv7738021048yqt05197"><div><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Bill Woodcock <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:woody@pch.net" target="_blank">woody@pch.net</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:mackey361@gmail.com" target="_blank">mackey361@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">
> Can we find out how many people in our group favour the sale to be stopped?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Stopping the sale is not my position, and is not wording that I think should be used. PIR is ISOC’s property, and they’re free to sell PIR to anyone they choose, for any terms they choose.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
What’s of interest is the delegation of the .ORG domain. It was delegated to ISOC under specific conditions, which ISOC unarguably no longer meets, and it was not delegated permanently, it was delegated subject to periodic review. They’ve triggered that review by their own action. A clear and well-established process and precedent exists, and was exercised on .ORG in 2002. My position is that ICANN should issue an open call for proposals for the delegation of .ORG, as in 2002, use the established multistakeholder process to review the 2002 criteria and approve them for re-use, or modify them as the community deems suitable given the long-term failure of the last selection, and use the established multistakeholder process to evaluate the proposals relative to the criteria, selecting the best one, and being very, very clear that it’s not property, and not subject to transfer outside of the open, competitive multistakeholder process.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This process is the process. There’s no question about that. It’s the only process that ICANN has ever used for .ORG. There was never a notion that it would only ever be applied once. The time has simply come to execute the established process again.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-Bill<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</blockquote></div></div></div></div><div id="gmail-m_-524804929870398261yiv2202153895gmail-m_-1103495470155162090yqt41802">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">CPWG mailing list<br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank">CPWG@icann.org</a><br clear="none"><a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div>