[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] A way forward on today's call re: PIR

Tue Dec 3 19:32:17 UTC 2019

Um, hate to tell you that the ICANN Board appears to have already answered;
no impact on stability and security.

It appears that their close reading of [what some of us think are the
relevant] clauses of the RA says PIR is and remains undisturbed as
consignee of goods and chattel per .org and that has not changed by virtue
of its sale to Ethos Capital. Expect PIR to swear to that, scout's honour.
Satisfaction established.

I would so wish to see a credible end user interest emerge from all the
folderol. Oh yes, if one is given to conspiracy theories one might even be
suspicious of the timelines that converged around the sale. But other than
the handwringing about lack of consultation and the contemplated savagery
to the pockets of .org registrants who may see a price increase - in a free
competitive market no less! - there really is no there there. I take this
as another teachable moment on 'knowing when to fold'.

To be brutally frank and the darwinian view applied, I'm more concerned
that ISOC may have left money lying on the table! And while I am a global
ISOC member, I'm fairly certain the ISOC Board would say they do not have a
duty of care to me about that either. So I am predicting no change in the
[ICANN Board] posture.

Here's the bald fact. The proposition is for the At-Large to seek ICANN's
intervention in a transaction that for the larger ecosystem in which it is
embedded this is a feature, not an aberrant bug.

This too shall pass.
Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:12 AM Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> 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 take
>    place?
>    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 registry?
>    7. Did ISOC receive multiple bids for PIR? If yes, what criteria in
>    addition to price were used to review the bids? Were the ICANN
>    criteria originally applied to dot org bidders in 2002
>    <http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm> considered? If no,
>    would ISOC consider other bids should the current proposal be rejected?
>    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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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._______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20191203/fafe45fd/attachment.html>