[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

[David Mackey]

Bill,

Fair enough. Wording is important at this point.

For the best wording, it might be a good idea to refer to the letter from
ICANN
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-to-pir-17jan20-en.pdf>to
PIR that delayed the decision date.

I believe the wording is "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."

If you accept the wording from that document, then the specific question
for consensus in our group is ...

Can we find out how many people in our group favour that "ICANN should
withhold consent to PIR’s proposed change of control"?

Cheers!
David

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:08 PM Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can we find out how many people in our group favour the sale to be
> stopped?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200122/094afd20/attachment-0001.html>