One thing is important about this recent development: the timing planned from the interested parties was to announce just after ICANN Montreal and conclude before ICANN Cancún, in order to avoid completely the public discussion about the transfer of control. Since the CA-AG has frozen the deal until at least April it seems that there will be room for a lively discussion at ICANN-67. I regret not being able to make it in person, but I hope that many of the participants to this WG will be there and will keep folks back home informed about the sessions where it will be possible to connect remotely. Cheers, Roberto On 02.02.2020, at 18:44, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Well, it looks as if someone in the CA State admin has decided to 'throw the book' at ICANN over this! CW On 2 Feb 2020, at 18:23, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for sharing the information Marita. You know, it's a little funny. I don't remember seeing the California's Attorney General in the picture that Olivier shared with us a few days ago. It's possible that important issues on Internet Governance are so disconnected from the average end user that they have no clue what happens between Internet leadership organizations like ICANN and iSOC. This disconnection of knowledge might allow for funny behaviour motivated by financial gain for some insiders which adds no value to end users, but increases risk to a stable Internet by introducing financial leverage which didn't exist before an unnecessary financial transaction. Since iSOC has chosen a process which takes advantage of the disconnect with the public (end users), it would be nice to see ICANN make a principled decision based on an open multistakeholder process. The failure of an open and effective multistakeholder process invites other people to the table, like California's Attorney General for instance. Within ICANN, we also have our At-Large community. Having received the great training at ATLAS III about how the multistakeholder process is supposed to work, I wonder if the reality of the At-Large consensus building process is also severely disconnected from the ideal process that was taught at ICANN66. Unfortunately, the .ORG transfer seems to be pressing the fault lines of a public test of consensus withinin At-Large. This is a different problem from the .ORG transfer issue itself. Just a thought or two. :-) Cheers! David On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 4:53 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: Attached for your information, letter to ICANN from the California AG. ICANN has is now seeking a deadline extention from PIR in order to reply to the 35 questions posed by the State of California re the proposed sale. Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from California Attorney General Regarding .ORG Change of Control Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:58:57 -0200 From: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns@gmail.com><mailto:bruna.mrtns@gmail.com> To: NCUC Discuss <ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org><mailto:ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org> Dear NCUC, FYI During this morning, at the NCSG call with Board Member Matthew Shears, he mentioned that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California has requested information from ICANN regarding the PIR deal. The correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-to-icann-board-23jan20-en.pdf> asks a set of 35 questions/requests to ICANN, from organizational matters, ICANNs capacity to regulate the registration fees and so on. Icann also issued a blog post<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-01-30-en> explaining that they are also "providing formal notice to PIR, pursuant to the terms of the PIR Registry Agreements, because the CA-AGO has requested that ICANN provide information that PIR designated as confidential. In addition, the CA-AGO has asked for more time, surpassing the current ICANN deadline to review the proposed change of control of the PIR Registry Agreements that is currently set as 17 February 2020. Accordingly, the letter from ICANN to PIR requests additional time, up to 20 April 2020, to conclude both the CA-AGO and ICANN reviews." Best regards, -- Bruna Martins dos Santos Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@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@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@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. <ca-ago-to-icann-board-23jan20-en.pdf>