On Jan 22, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Bill Jouris <b_jouris@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.)

If that wording can gain consensus, and additional wording specifically supporting application of a multistakeholder process cannot, then I support that wording. A potential friendly amendment with wording regarding multistakeholder process would be:

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. Change of delegation of .org is subject to the discipline of competition and the principles of multistakeholder governance, and should follow the example set in 2002.

-Bill