[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Wed Jan 22 20:51:56 UTC 2020

Hey Bill,

Yes, I see the distinction in your word suggestion, however, I wonder if
the wording from the ICANN letter sufficiently represents that distinction
already.

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.

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.

Cheers!
David

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> 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.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Regards
> Bill Jouris
>
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:39:01 PM PST, David Mackey <
> mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill,
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers!
> David
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As David says, wording is important.  Let me suggest the following:
>
> ICANN makes no objection to the transfer of control of PIR, *once
> alternative arrangements are in place for the administration of the .org
> TLD*.  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.
>
>
> 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.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Jouris
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:22:46 PM PST, David Mackey <
> mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200122/0cee1e4e/attachment.html>