[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Sun Jan 26 22:54:04 UTC 2020

In some parts of the world, $70 is a week's wages.  Maybe most registrants
can afford to pay more - but the question is why should they have to?

The YMCA has registered over 2,400 .org domain names.  Rotary has
registered over 2,900 .org domain names.  At $70 per domain name, that
would be over $168,000 from the YMCA and over $200,000 per year from the
Rotary organization going to the .org registry.  It's not a large sum of
money for those organizations.  But they could put that money to better use
than shipping it off to a private equity firm.  If there was any
justification for it, it wouldn't be so bad.  But there is no justification
for it except that ICANN failed to protect a public resource that was
entrusted to it.

There are over a million nonprofits in the U.S., not to mention the rest of
the world.  When you can put your hand into a million pockets, the sums add
up pretty quickly.  The cash flows over the next few years are worth over
$1 billion to Ethos.  If they go up 10 fold, then the .org registry would
be worth over $10 billion to Ethos.

Either amount is a lot of money.  Certainly makes it worth the while of the
folks trying to get the deal done to try to use whatever means at their
disposal to bend ICANN to their will and to get ICANN to approve the sale.

Hard to see how this is in any way in the public interest.

I just don't see how At-Large comes out looking anything but captured and a
farce if it fails to oppose "the change of control of .org".

Regards,

Nat

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:05 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Welcome Bruce! What what would represent "significant?" in this case, a 10
> fold increase (which is much more than expected!) would amount to $70. In
> the context of managing a website, would that be material? I've run 6
> non-profits and I'm hard pressed to consider this significant.
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
> ------------------------------
> *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Baughman <
> bruce at artistsdomain.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:53:46 AM
> *To:* 'Jacqueline Morris' <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>; 'Bill Jouris' <
> b_jouris at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have not responded to any messages from this group in the past but this
> issue is one that impacts my direct client base.
>
> I am a consultant to mid/large charities and NGOs.
>
> Most have little understanding of the domain structure but all need an
> affordable and reliable domain name.
>
> Any cost or management obstacles could affect small charities and NGOs
> from ever growing or existing.
>
> Any price increases that would be significant could stifle the growth of a
> cause or initiative.
>
>
>
> To that; if I have any vote, it is to oppose the transfer.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bruce Baughman
>
> in/brucebaughman <https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaughman>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jacqueline Morris
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM
> *To:* Bill Jouris <b_jouris at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
>
>
>
> Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"?
>
> Jacqueline
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg at icann.org> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200126/b27f91f0/attachment-0001.html>