Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts. If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot! And along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding. However, far more important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
Alan Greenberg
Dear Alan, (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits) If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org <http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits)
If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 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.
I agree with Alan on his central concern but I'm hard pressed to see a practical way to enforce a marketing plan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 3:49:03 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please Holly On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org<http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits) If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context. And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ 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.
We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there. I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale. Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please
Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Alan,
(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >To: ICANN Board > >This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect >a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a >few thoughts. > >With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was >starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and >bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of >the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) >involved, the odor has started to rise again. > >When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public >relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a >number of possible very unfortunate consequences. > >1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove >pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos >are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases >could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 >years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and >this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 >years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales >sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that >the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too >late to change this, regardless of owner. > >2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of >the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under >.org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real >life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them >are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you >see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I >registered alangreenberg.org <http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my >local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for >ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive. > >That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that >has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure >of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org >into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to >.com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
>If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very >targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits)
If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And >along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The >lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its >annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore. > >Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those >assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more >important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the >shots and those other entities who may have control have made no >such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
> >I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. >The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But >if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it >include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of >the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a >true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be >difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be >honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the >intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for >having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
> >Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos HI Marita, I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote: We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there. I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale. Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please Holly On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org<http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits) If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context. And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity. Nat Cohen On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein < judith@jhellerstein.com> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM *To:* cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
HI Marita,
I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there.
I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale.
Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please
Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits)
If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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 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.
Maybe first, we should check on a couple of things. According to the NYT story in early January, ICANN asked for more information - has that been provided (can we find out) and what information was provided. If it has been provided, at what stage will ICANN make a decision on approval - or not. That information may help in working through whether ALAC (or others) has a hope of stopping the transaction - or not. It will certainly help in our response if we know what information was requested (and provided) - and when a decision can be expected. At this stage, there appears to be a bit of time - a decision seems not to have been made yet. So we do have a tiny bit of time to ask - whether we have any realistic prospect in stopping the bid (along with the many others who have expressed concern about the proposal) - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements through contract provisions (and I agree with Jonathan and Marita - this seems to be what is most likely to be achieved) - whether we seek to have a public interest Board member (this is generally not supported - corporate governance rules means ALL Board members must act in the best interests of the company) Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity.
Nat Cohen
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM To: cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
HI Marita,
I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements
Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com <mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com <http://www.jhellerstein.com/> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there.
I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale.
Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please
Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Alan,
(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org <http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits)
If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 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.
Isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy that if we believe that we don't have any realistic prospect of stopping the bid, and therefore don't oppose it, that we will then in effect be facilitating the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital, whether or not we believe that is the right outcome? If we believe, as self-appointed stewards of the interests of end-users, that the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital is not in the interests of end-users, then shouldn't we voice objection to the sale - whether or not the Board decides to take our advice? Our role here is to speak on behalf of one of the most important stakeholders to this decision. ICANN purports to have a bottom-up, multistakeholder model. The Board should therefore pay attention to our advice. If they don't, then that will be a failure of the Board to fulfill their responsibility, not of us to fulfill ours. We should provide the best advice possible to the Board that best reflects the interests of our end-user constituents and the mission of ICANN to serve the public benefit. Otherwise, what is our role here? Nat Cohen On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Maybe first, we should check on a couple of things. According to the NYT story in early January, ICANN asked for more information - has that been provided (can we find out) and what information was provided. If it has been provided, at what stage will ICANN make a decision on approval - or not.
That information may help in working through whether ALAC (or others) has a hope of stopping the transaction - or not. It will certainly help in our response if we know what information was requested (and provided) - and when a decision can be expected.
At this stage, there appears to be a bit of time - a decision seems not to have been made yet. So we do have a tiny bit of time to ask - whether we have any realistic prospect in stopping the bid (along with the many others who have expressed concern about the proposal) - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements through contract provisions (and I agree with Jonathan and Marita - this seems to be what is most likely to be achieved) - whether we seek to have a public interest Board member (this is generally not supported - corporate governance rules means ALL Board members must act in the best interests of the company)
Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity.
Nat Cohen
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein < judith@jhellerstein.com> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM *To:* cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
HI Marita,
I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements
Judith
_________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there.
I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale.
Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please
Holly
On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
(With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline)
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today.
Alan
At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits)
If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context.
And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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 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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://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 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 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.
On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity.
I’ve seen you say that several times, but most everyone else seems to be in agreement that this deal is not ok, and cannot be made ok by any of the non-binding “promises” that the PE folks have been talking about. Those are, literally, just talk. The whole point of using the coop form was to create a legal binding mechanism for the necessary protections. If the PE folks were serious, they’d have offered up some mechanism of their own. They haven’t. I think the question at hand is whether we advocate for disallowing this particular back-door deal (and then have to address the same question over and over as ISOC comes back with their #2 PE offer, and their #3 PE offer, and their #4 PE offer…), or whether we advocate for disallowing back-door deals as a matter of principle, and point out instead that ICANN has a regulatory duty to the stability of the name and number system, and a regulatory duty to the public interest, and that they can only serve those duties by enacting an actual competitive, multistakeholder process for redelegation. That gives good outcomes. Letting people go wildly into debt in order to circumvent competition and the multistakeholder process guarantees bad outcomes. -Bill
There are a lot of people who are not in favour of stopping the sale who aren't comfortable posting given the "passion" that giving such a response has engendered on this list and others. Try a survey or poll, I think that the response might be enlightening. Regards Jacqueline On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 7:36 am Bill Woodcock, <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity.
I’ve seen you say that several times, but most everyone else seems to be in agreement that this deal is not ok, and cannot be made ok by any of the non-binding “promises” that the PE folks have been talking about. Those are, literally, just talk. The whole point of using the coop form was to create a legal binding mechanism for the necessary protections. If the PE folks were serious, they’d have offered up some mechanism of their own. They haven’t.
I think the question at hand is whether we advocate for disallowing this particular back-door deal (and then have to address the same question over and over as ISOC comes back with their #2 PE offer, and their #3 PE offer, and their #4 PE offer…), or whether we advocate for disallowing back-door deals as a matter of principle, and point out instead that ICANN has a regulatory duty to the stability of the name and number system, and a regulatory duty to the public interest, and that they can only serve those duties by enacting an actual competitive, multistakeholder process for redelegation.
That gives good outcomes.
Letting people go wildly into debt in order to circumvent competition and the multistakeholder process guarantees bad outcomes.
-Bill
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Jonathan, We've probably had enough time, information and debate to build informed individual opinions now. Luckily the original deadline has been extended into February, but we shouldn't delay. It's probably a good use of the extra time to determine consensus (if achievable) and refine our joint communication. Jacqueline indicated that some people may not feel comfortable posting due to the "passion" of others. I hope that's not the case, but it's probably time for everyone to speak up and be publicly counted on the issue in front of us. What's the process for determining consensus on this email list? Can we find out how many people in our group favour the sale to be stopped? Cheers David On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2020, at 8:52 PM, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: There are a lot of people who are not in favour of stopping the sale
Ok, if you are one of them, can you articulate your rationale?
-Bill
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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
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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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
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@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 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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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.
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@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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.
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? RegardsBill Jouris On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:39:01 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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@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 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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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.
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@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@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@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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.
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. CheersBill On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:52:09 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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? RegardsBill Jouris On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:39:01 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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@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 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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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.
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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.
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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.
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@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@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@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@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@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@yahoo.com<mailto:b_jouris@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@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@yahoo.com<mailto: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.) Regards, Bill Jouris On Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 12:22:46 PM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@pch.net<mailto:woody@pch.net>> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@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. _______________________________________________ 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.
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
Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"? Jacqueline On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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.
+1 Sometimes we need ladies to tell us that smoothing out the male confrontational attitude might get better results 😜 Cheers, R On 23.01.2020, at 19:25, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com<mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com>> wrote: Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"? Jacqueline On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@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@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@pch.net<mailto:woody@pch.net>> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@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. _______________________________________________ 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.
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@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@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@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@gmail.com <mailto:mackey361@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@pch.net <mailto:woody@pch.net> > wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com <mailto:mackey361@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@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.
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<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Baughman <bruce@artistsdomain.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:53:46 AM To: 'Jacqueline Morris' <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Cc: 'CPWG' <cpwg@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@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@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@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@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@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@pch.net<mailto:woody@pch.net>> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com<mailto:mackey361@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@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.
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@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@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Baughman < bruce@artistsdomain.com> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:53:46 AM *To:* 'Jacqueline Morris' <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; 'Bill Jouris' < b_jouris@yahoo.com> *Cc:* 'CPWG' <cpwg@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@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jacqueline Morris *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM *To:* Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@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@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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 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.
Hello Jonathon, Nat and everyone, In support of what Nat has said I would say that any increase from the current amount to ~$40-$70++ would appear to place an unfair burden on a charity or NGO. A government funded NGO may not have the burden that a donor supported Org has but it’s still an expense. PIR is supposed to be a supporting body in the Public Interest. A new company (Ethos) does not appear to have any such concerns and while I am not overly opposed to a business making a reasonable profit that should not be the case here. A quick look at some organizations I support shows they typically have 5-1000 domain names in support of the main web presence as well as in support of specific causes, locations or events. Any significant increase (+20%) would place an obstacle for organizations to spin up a new event or continue their current efforts. Even if there is not an immediate increase, what about next year or the year after? Could we see a $100 per year .org; possibly. NGOs/Charities rely on the .org extension for validation. If this was another extension I would not have the same concerns although extreme fees for a domain names are a constant concern. Thanks for listening. Best regards, Bruce Baughman in/brucebaughman <https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaughman> From: Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 5:54 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: bruce@artistsdomain.com; Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos 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@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@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 <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> _____ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Bruce Baughman <bruce@artistsdomain.com <mailto:bruce@artistsdomain.com> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:53:46 AM To: 'Jacqueline Morris' <jam@jacquelinemorris.com <mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com> >; 'Bill Jouris' <b_jouris@yahoo.com <mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com> > Cc: 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:25 PM To: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com <mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@gmail.com <mailto:mackey361@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@pch.net <mailto:woody@pch.net> > wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com <mailto:mackey361@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@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. _______________________________________________ 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.
On Jan 28, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Bruce Baughman <bruce@artistsdomain.com> wrote: In support of what Nat has said I would say that any increase from the current amount to ~$40-$70++ would appear to place an unfair burden on a charity or NGO.
Moreover, there’s no justification for it. No additional service has been asked for, nor is any being offered. The profit margin on .ORG domains is already insanely high. I haven’t seen anyone offer any rationale for why this is justified. Why any non-profit should suddenly owe new money, when they haven’t received any value in exchange. -Bill
Hi Jacqueline, Certainly works for me. Bill Jouris On Thursday, January 23, 2020, 10:25:22 AM PST, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"?Jacqueline On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@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@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 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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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.
Hi Jacueline, I'm sorry. I may have missed a thread. I'm not sure what "alternative" vs "acceptable" is referring to. Can you please post the full statement these word are connected with? All, So far, I think Roberto's statement "I believe that “change of control of .org” describes accurately what we worry about and therefore the issue that we want to address." is the most focused statement that I've seen yet. I recommend to keep working on finding a neutral issue statement, building from Roberto, before we get lost in a conversation with opinions on the issue. i.e. please hold off voting for now. :-) When we have a a neutral issue statement, we should then turn it into a yes/no question and test for consensus. It would be nice to have a neutral mechanism like a survey suggested earlier by Jacqueline, or a poll, or a vote. Do we have this mechanism? Can staff be used to help test for consensus? I'm not the best person to manage the mechanism, because I don't consider myself neutral on this issue. Cheers, David On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:25 PM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
Certainly works for me.
Bill Jouris
On Thursday, January 23, 2020, 10:25:22 AM PST, Jacqueline Morris < jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Rather than "alternative", why not "acceptable"? Jacqueline
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm Bill Jouris via CPWG, <cpwg@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@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@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2020, at 8:57 PM, David Mackey <mackey361@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@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 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 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.
Fair points Nat. We'll bring it up as part of a consensus discussion. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation Www.Innovatorsnetwork.org From: Nat Cohen<mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:28 AM To: Holly Raiche<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> Cc: CPWG<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy that if we believe that we don't have any realistic prospect of stopping the bid, and therefore don't oppose it, that we will then in effect be facilitating the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital, whether or not we believe that is the right outcome? If we believe, as self-appointed stewards of the interests of end-users, that the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital is not in the interests of end-users, then shouldn't we voice objection to the sale - whether or not the Board decides to take our advice? Our role here is to speak on behalf of one of the most important stakeholders to this decision. ICANN purports to have a bottom-up, multistakeholder model. The Board should therefore pay attention to our advice. If they don't, then that will be a failure of the Board to fulfill their responsibility, not of us to fulfill ours. We should provide the best advice possible to the Board that best reflects the interests of our end-user constituents and the mission of ICANN to serve the public benefit. Otherwise, what is our role here? Nat Cohen On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> wrote: Maybe first, we should check on a couple of things. According to the NYT story in early January, ICANN asked for more information - has that been provided (can we find out) and what information was provided. If it has been provided, at what stage will ICANN make a decision on approval - or not. That information may help in working through whether ALAC (or others) has a hope of stopping the transaction - or not. It will certainly help in our response if we know what information was requested (and provided) - and when a decision can be expected. At this stage, there appears to be a bit of time - a decision seems not to have been made yet. So we do have a tiny bit of time to ask - whether we have any realistic prospect in stopping the bid (along with the many others who have expressed concern about the proposal) - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements through contract provisions (and I agree with Jonathan and Marita - this seems to be what is most likely to be achieved) - whether we seek to have a public interest Board member (this is generally not supported - corporate governance rules means ALL Board members must act in the best interests of the company) Holly On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com<mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com>> wrote: My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity. Nat Cohen On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos HI Marita, I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com/> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote: We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there. I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale. Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please Holly On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org<http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits) If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context. And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
On Jan 21, 2020, at 4:13 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements through contract provisions
You can’t legislate goodness, any more than you can legislate smartness. If someone is determined to go into debt to buy their way in the back door, rather than put forward their qualifications for evaluation, do you think that telling them, in a contract, that they need to be good, is going to make them so? If they were good, they could just demonstrate that, and then there wouldn’t need to be any fuss. It’s because they _aren’t_ good that they have to go $1.1bn in hock to avoid being scrutinized. You don’t spend that much money if you can avoid it by simply being good. -Bill
FYI -- On January 17, the ICANN Board stated in a letter that it will be requesting further information regarding the transaction. According to the letter, the ICANN Board's deadline to approve or not approve the change in control of PIR is February 17. For more info: *Public Interest Registry, ICANN Extend Deadline <https://newsalerts.icann.org/dd0PR1gN920Ev00R0M020C0>* 17 January 2020 *LOS ANGELES – 17 January 2020* – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and Public Interest Registry (PIR) have mutually agreed to a 30-day extension of ICANN's time to review PIR's submissions. Also, ICANN will be requesting further information from PIR. The agreement can be found here <https://newsalerts.icann.org/DCh000N0ERv00901PN2R0d2>. This is an update to ICANN's Announcement on 11 January 2020 <https://newsalerts.icann.org/G1R0E920vO0iC0dP0000RN2>. Greg On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 6:39 AM Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2020, at 4:13 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements through contract provisions
You can’t legislate goodness, any more than you can legislate smartness. If someone is determined to go into debt to buy their way in the back door, rather than put forward their qualifications for evaluation, do you think that telling them, in a contract, that they need to be good, is going to make them so? If they were good, they could just demonstrate that, and then there wouldn’t need to be any fuss. It’s because they _aren’t_ good that they have to go $1.1bn in hock to avoid being scrutinized. You don’t spend that much money if you can avoid it by simply being good.
-Bill
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list 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.
Let's definitely get this on the Agenda for Wednesday because I fully admit I'm just spitballing based on the email list. We've never done even a rough consensus call. Perhaps we should assign folks to make a case for Reject and Accept but Modify. Feedback from the Leon hasn't been particularly optimistic about having a basis to just transfer the contract and MIGHT not even have a basis for stopping the sale. Let's get someone to make each case and discuss and then do a rough consensus call. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation Www.Innovatorsnetwork.org From: Nat Cohen<mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:33 AM To: Jonathan Zuck<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Judith Hellerstein<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>, CPWG<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the new entity. Nat Cohen On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the sale. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:judith@jhellerstein.com>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM To: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos HI Marita, I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail: Judith@jhellerstein.com<mailto:Judith@jhellerstein.com> Website: www.jhellerstein.com<http://www.jhellerstein.com> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote: We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything there. I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our community is in favour of the sale. Marita On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: Alan raises some very good points for discussion. Could we put his letter on the wiki for PIR please Holly On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <6.internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the Board, some comments inline) On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
To: ICANN Board
This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a few thoughts.
With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) involved, the odor has started to rise again.
When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too late to change this, regardless of owner.
2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under .org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I registered alangreenberg.org<http://alangreenberg.org/> and used .org for the domain name of my local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to .com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG like pursuits) If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD. This is just a thought, shared in context. And
along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
However, far more
important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the shots and those other entities who may have control have made no such assurances at all.
Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a manner that would so easily concede control.
I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for having their contract revoked.
That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
Alan Greenberg
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Jouris -
Bill Woodcock -
Bruce Baughman -
David Mackey -
Greg Shatan -
Holly Raiche -
Jacqueline Morris -
Jonathan Zuck -
Judith Hellerstein -
Marita Moll -
Nat Cohen -
Roberto Gaetano -
sivasubramanian muthusamy