[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] A way forward on today's call re: PIR
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Tue Dec 3 16:12:22 UTC 2019
In advance of today's single issue call re: PIR, see below a section of
the Registry Agreement that allows ICANN to seek additional information
from the registry operator before approving a change of control. We
could ask that ICANN seek answers to some of the outstanding questions
-- such as those posed in a previous e-mail from Mark Surman at Modzilla
1. Are the stewardship measures proposed for the new PIR sufficient to
protect the interests of the dot org community? What is missing?
2. What level of scope, authority and independence will the proposed
Stewardship Council possess? Will dot org stakeholders have
opportunities to weigh in on the selection of the Council and
development of its bylaws and its relationship to PIR and Ethos?
3. What assurances can the dot org community have that Ethos and PIR
will keep their promises regarding price increases? Will there be
any remedy if these promises are not kept?
4. What mechanisms does PIR currently have in place to implement
measures to protect free speech and other rights of domain holders
under its revised contract, and will those mechanisms change in any
way with the transfer of ownership and control? In particular, how
will PIR handle requests from government actors?
5. When is the planned incorporation of PIR as a B corp? Are there any
repercussions for Ethos and/or PIR if this incorporation does not
6. What guarantees are in place to retain the unique character of the
dot org as a home for non-commercial organizations, one of the
important stewardship promises made by PIR when it was granted the
7. Did ISOC receive multiple bids for PIR? If yes, what criteria in
addition to price were used to review the bids? Were theICANN
criteria originally applied to dot org bidders in 2002
no, would ISOC consider other bids should the current proposal be
8. How long has Ethos committed to stay invested in PIR? Are there
measures in place to ensure continued commitment to the answers
above in the event of a resale?
9. What changes to ICANN’s agreement with PIR should be made to ensure
that dot org is maintained in a manner that serves the public
interest, and that ICANN has recourse to act swiftly if it is not?
Registry agreement 7.5 Change of control, assignment and subcontracting
(a)Registry Operator must provide no less than thirty (30) calendar days
advance notice to ICANN of any assignment or Material Subcontracting
Arrangement, and any agreement to assign or subcontract any portion of
the operations of the TLD (whether or not a Material Subcontracting
Arrangement) must mandate compliance with all covenants, obligations and
agreements by Registry Operator hereunder, and Registry Operator shall
continue to be bound by such covenants, obligations and agreements.
Registry Operator must also provide no less than thirty (30) calendar
days advance notice to ICANN prior to the consummation of any
transaction anticipated to result in a direct or indirect change of
control of Registry Operator.
(b)Within thirty (30) calendar days of either such notification pursuant
to Section 7.5(a),*ICANN may request additional information from
Registry Operator* establishing (i) compliance with this Agreement and
(ii) that the party acquiring such control or entering into such
assignment or Material Subcontracting Arrangement (in any case, the
“Contracting Party”) and the ultimate parent entity of the Contracting
Party meets the ICANN-adopted specification or policy on registry
operator criteria then in effect (including with respect to financial
resources and operational and technical capabilities), in which case
Registry Operator must supply the requested information within fifteen
(15) calendar days.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the GTLD-WG