[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Thu Jan 23 14:35:30 UTC 2020

I believe that “change of control of .org” describes accurately what we worry about and therefore the issue that we want to address.
R

On 23.01.2020, at 15:17, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com<mailto:mackey361 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Greg,

Request for clarification ...

Agreed. "Stopping the sale" is not the right wording to use for building consensus.

You previously shared a letter from ICANN to PIR<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-to-pir-17jan20-en.pdf> that used the phrase "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."

Can we use the following words from the ICANN letter to test consensus in our group? ... "provide or withhold consent to PIR’s proposed change of control."

It might be best to focus on getting the right wording to test consensus before we mix in the varied opinions of the issue itself.

Thanks
David

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:20 PM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>> wrote:
The sale of PIR is only in front of ICANN because it is the sale of .ORG.  The sale of PIR is only an object of discussion because it is the sale of .org.  The sale of PIR in and of itself is a non-event.  There's nothing in ICANN's statement that creates the distinction being discussed here.  A statement that we're okay with the sale of PIR as long as it doesn't include .org will not be taken seriously, and neither will we.  It's based on a distinction that is irrelevant to the substance of this matter.

"Stopping the sale" means stopping the sale of PIR as the registry operator of .org.  That's the only sale that matters here, whether you're for the sale, skeptical, don't care, or oppose it.

Whatever our position or recommendations are, they should be expressed plainly.

I cannot support any statement these lines.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:03 PM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>> wrote:
Sure, David

I'm actually OK with either wording.  (And I, too, hope that the ICANN Board is consulting with their lawyers in depth as they look at this,)  Just so we get our views on record in time to do some good.

Cheers
Bill

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:52:09 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com<mailto:mackey361 at gmail.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:woody at pch.net>> wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto: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/20200123/93ef0b46/attachment-0001.html>