Thanks Christopher. Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted. Alan At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: FYI The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...> CW _______________________________________________ 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 suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR sale… Thanks Christopher. Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted. Alan At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote: FYI The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...> CW _______________________________________________ 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.
It does make our lives easier. We can now simply back up the rationale of the NRO action and request that ICANN give serious attention to the public interest consequences of the transfer. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Thu., Jan. 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m. Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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 agree with Evan's assessment … CW
On 3 Jan 2020, at 01:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org <mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote:
It does make our lives easier. We can now simply back up the rationale of the NRO action and request that ICANN give serious attention to the public interest consequences of the transfer.
___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56
On Thu., Jan. 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m. Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
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 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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.
Let's do that Marita On 1/3/2020 10:59 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
I agree with Evan's assessment …
CW
On 3 Jan 2020, at 01:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org <mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote:
It does make our lives easier. We can now simply back up the rationale of the NRO action and request that ICANN give serious attention to the public interest consequences of the transfer.
___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56
On Thu., Jan. 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m. Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
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 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale… Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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 <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
_______________________________________________ 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 Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 10:20 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Let's do that
Marita On 1/3/2020 10:59 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
I agree with Evan's assessment …
CW
On 3 Jan 2020, at 01:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It does make our lives easier. We can now simply back up the rationale of the NRO action and request that ICANN give serious attention to the public interest consequences of the transfer.
___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56
On Thu., Jan. 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m. Jonathan Zuck, < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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 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 rationale and the scope of the request don’t really fit together. By definition, the request only includes (1) accounting books and records and (2) meeting minutes for the Board and its committees. “Accounting books and records” is not likely to be construed broadly. Financial records, ledgers, bank statements, financial statements and other similar stuff is good for looking for financial shenanigans. May not be worth much here. Minutes is (are?) also fairly specific. Neither category provides an obvious or self-explanatory path to getting anything submitted by ISOC, PIR or Ethos, or any internal ICANN documents that are not obviously financial accounting documents. While it could still be a worthwhile request, its limited scope should be understood. I would also like to know who we are really supporting if we support this. Maybe Jonathan is wrong and this is merely a sincere, self-generated concern of the RIRs. Or maybe there is another organization behind this. If it’s the latter, I’d like to know who we’re getting in bed with, so to speak. Greg On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:20 AM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
Let's do that
Marita On 1/3/2020 10:59 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
I agree with Evan's assessment …
CW
On 3 Jan 2020, at 01:37, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
It does make our lives easier. We can now simply back up the rationale of the NRO action and request that ICANN give serious attention to the public interest consequences of the transfer.
___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56
On Thu., Jan. 2, 2020, 4:17 p.m. Jonathan Zuck, < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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 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 Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
Hello Jonathan, Kindly find inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, 22:17 Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
SO: Do you mind elaborating further on this? Am trying to understand the connection between EFF and the NRO that you've figured out. Happy new year to everyone. Regards
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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.
To be clear, I haven't "figured out" anything. Here's what I see: 1. #SaveDotOrg is in active recruitment mode. Thanks to Evan, I was introduced to them so that I could better understand their positions and perhaps gain their feedback on any advice we might deliver to the board. 2. EFF is one of the founding members of #SaveDotOrg 3. EFF is made up primarily of lawyers who take folks to court to protect our civil liberties. They are very good and generally very process oriented. 4. The NRO is regarded as an organization free of conflicts when it comes to domain name policy. They are who I would recruit. 5. The interesting wording in their letter "We have therefore agreed to issue an Inspection Request to ICANN..." 6. Kevin Murphy seems to be suspecting something similar when he says "makes me wonder (aloud, it seems) whether the ASO had received any nudges from other members of the EC before filing the request." I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with it but I'm always interested in the genesis of such a, as Alan put it, "historic action." Make sense? Jonathan ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 1:17 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Christopher Wilkinson <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR sale… Hello Jonathan, Kindly find inline: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, 22:17 Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic. SO: Do you mind elaborating further on this? Am trying to understand the connection between EFF and the NRO that you've figured out. Happy new year to everyone. Regards 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 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR sale… Thanks Christopher. Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted. Alan At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: FYI The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...> CW _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Jonathan, Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, 20:17 Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:.
1. The interesting wording in their letter "We have therefore agreed to issue an Inspection Request to ICANN..."
SO: That section is actually referring to the 5 RIRs which makes up the NRO agreeing within themselves to issue the request.
1. Kevin Murphy seems to be suspecting something similar when he says "makes me wonder (aloud, it seems) whether the ASO had received any nudges from other members of the EC before filing the request."
SO: The letter was actually written by the ASO EC themselves(note not the ASO AC) as it is the Chair of the EC that is a member of the empowered community[1]. Regards 1. https://www.nro.net/accountability/aso-and-icann-accountability/icann-empowe...
1.
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with it but I'm always interested in the genesis of such a, as Alan put it, "historic action." Make sense?
Jonathan
------------------------------ *From:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, January 3, 2020 1:17 PM *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Hello Jonathan,
Kindly find inline:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020, 22:17 Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
I suspect, from reading how carefully this is worded, that EFF is behind this. Very interesting tactic.
SO: Do you mind elaborating further on this? Am trying to understand the connection between EFF and the NRO that you've figured out.
Happy new year to everyone.
Regards
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59:15 PM *To:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>; cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
Thanks Christopher.
Unless I missed something, this is a rather historic action. It is the FIRST time the accountability powers given to the ICANN community with its new Bylaws have been used in a proactive way, and by the part of the ICANN Community least expected to intervene when not directly impacted.
Alan
At 01/01/2020 08:51 AM, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
FYI
The Number Resource Organization (NRO) Issues Inspection Request to ICANN Concerning the .ORG Sale <https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4f...>
CW _______________________________________________ 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.
FYI Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...> CW
I like Jacob personally and in fact he's responsible for my getting involved in ALAC more than a decade ago, Having said that, his CircleID piece was uncalled-for, unhelpful, and needlessly antagonistic. In particular, the personalizing of the issue by calling out Maureen by name is a pressure tactic that I for one do not appreciate. It may be common in conventional political wrestling, but it's counter-productive here. Maureen, like Jonathan, are chairs of committees. They have the unenviable task of herding these diverse dens of cats but do not control their direction or speak for them without consensus. They may be thought leaders, but we have an abundance of those. There are multiple flaws with the article's call to action. For one, the characterization of ALAC as ICANN's "consumer organization" is wholly misplaced. Internet end users are not, by definition, consumers (ie, purchasers) of domains -- registrants are. We've been around the block many times about the subtle but sometimes very real distinction between the interests of end users and those of non-profit registrants (a community explicitly defined within ICANN's family -- NPOC). End-users are not even part of ICANN's food chain, and issues such as incremental domain pricing that matter greatly to registrants matter nearly nil to end-users. Misunderstanding that distinction, and publicly belittling ALAC for staying to its focus, won't win any friends. And, if as claimed, nobody is against the opposition to the sale, why is our additional support even needed? Oh ... and to top it all off ... invoking Godwin's Law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law> both hurts the argument and smacks of desperation.
From the end-user PoV there are certainly ALAC-relevant issues related to trust and abuse related to the .ORG regime change. I personally care that most of the world's nonprofits are opposed, for I care about their well-being more than I care about PIR's. The question of whether .ORG is a special case that deserves a custodian rather than ICANN's usual definition of registry-as-commodity-lessee is a valid one, but the end-user scope here is narrow.
I highly support Roberto's approach that I have read here and would like to help move that forward. And while I have been generally supportive of Jacob's position I am not at all in sync with the chosen pressure tactics. Being shamed and insulted at CircleID is something ALAC endures so often, that using the platform to pressure ALAC action comes across as both ignorant and ineffective. Readers who are aware of how little sway ALAC has within ICANN may even have a chuckle. Dive-bombing into this committee and making demands without taking any effort to understand its complex political dynamics is not an effective tactic -- either for Jacob, Nat or anyone else. - Evan On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:23, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI
Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large [1]
The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- Links: ------ [1] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...
I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned. Marita On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...> The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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.
Just for the sake of clarity, I have never said that we should only ask for a seat on the Board, I was only adding this item to what I have stated in my earlier messages. I agree with you that the key question is to keep the voice of the users heard loud and clear, and to keep the public interest on top of the priorities for the “new” PIR. Incidentally, if we fail to make the point about the prominent place of the public interest and the non-profit community, we will even fail to have an argument for practical changes, like the Board seat. Cheers, Roberto On 08.01.2020, at 22:50, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote: I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned. Marita On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote: Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> ha scritto: FYI Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...> The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu<http://bertola.eu> <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ 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.
Sorry Roberto. It was not meant disparagingly. I really like how you have framed it here -- about the foundation of our concerns which should revolve around the importance of protecting the public interest and concerns of the non-profit community in a historic deal that could spin in the other direction. We cannot rely on promises made where there are no consequences for breaking them . Ethos has said they would apply to become a "sort of" public benefit corp. but apparently that doesn't provide much comfort. I am not up on corp. law in the U.S. but there is apparently another option -- a real public benefit corp that would hold them to real outcomes (I am getting this info off another list -- so a bit fuzzy). Is that one avenue we could explore as a response not to ICANN but to the situation in general in a letter to PIR/ISOC. Marita On 1/8/2020 5:24 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Just for the sake of clarity, I have never said that we should only ask for a seat on the Board, I was only adding this item to what I have stated in my earlier messages. I agree with you that the key question is to keep the voice of the users heard loud and clear, and to keep the public interest on top of the priorities for the “new” PIR. Incidentally, if we fail to make the point about the prominent place of the public interest and the non-profit community, we will even fail to have an argument for practical changes, like the Board seat.
Cheers, Roberto
On 08.01.2020, at 22:50, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned.
Marita
On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...> The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <http://bertola.eu> <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <http://bertola.eu/> <--------
_______________________________________________ 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 <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.
I agree that our voice needs to be heard. But what is that voice going to say? The Malthouse piece is a terrible blueprint for what that voice should be saying. Frankly, it's misguided and even offensive. If anything, we should be pushing back on it -- but by putting out different and better ideas, not by getting into a flame war. I don't support a hasty conclusion that the public interest aspect of .ORG is being abandoned (easily or not). At best, there is cause for concern. But a rush to judgment is not the way to deal with those concerns. We have the opportunity to frame the discussion, by asking solid, well-grounded questions, by proposing some principles/guideposts, and by providing advice on how to resolve these concerns -- which could mean a sale that allays our concerns and that goes through, or a sale that substantiates our concerns and doesn't go through. More specifically, ownership of .ORG by a non-profit has a nice symmetry to it. It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening. But ... there is no reason to presume that ownership by a non-profit is truly in the best interests of .ORG, its users or the general public. If there's a reason to say that ownership by Ethos Capital will serve those interests well, it will need to come from facts and action (much of it from Ethos, PIR and even ISOC); we can't presume that either. We need to be the voice of the end-user, a voice of reason, and a voice for the public interest. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff. We may want to have our own meeting with ISOC, PIR and Ethos to get at the facts and dispel the myths. As ALAC/At-Large, we have the platform to ask for that. If we join the pitchfork-and-torches crowd, we lose our unique voice and place in the ecosystem. We become followers, not leaders. We become enablers (and even spreaders) of FUD, rather than dispellers of FUD. So, let's find our voice. But first we need to find our collective thoughts. Best regards, Greg Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"* On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned.
Marita On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI
Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission.
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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.
"We need to be the voice of the end-user, a voice of reason, and a voice for the public interest". Thank you Greg. I couldn't agree more. M On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:31 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
I agree that our voice needs to be heard. But what is that voice going to say?
The Malthouse piece is a terrible blueprint for what that voice should be saying. Frankly, it's misguided and even offensive. If anything, we should be pushing back on it -- but by putting out different and better ideas, not by getting into a flame war.
I don't support a hasty conclusion that the public interest aspect of .ORG is being abandoned (easily or not). At best, there is cause for concern. But a rush to judgment is not the way to deal with those concerns. We have the opportunity to frame the discussion, by asking solid, well-grounded questions, by proposing some principles/guideposts, and by providing advice on how to resolve these concerns -- which could mean a sale that allays our concerns and that goes through, or a sale that substantiates our concerns and doesn't go through.
More specifically, ownership of .ORG by a non-profit has a nice symmetry to it. It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening. But ... there is no reason to presume that ownership by a non-profit is truly in the best interests of .ORG, its users or the general public. If there's a reason to say that ownership by Ethos Capital will serve those interests well, it will need to come from facts and action (much of it from Ethos, PIR and even ISOC); we can't presume that either.
We need to be the voice of the end-user, a voice of reason, and a voice for the public interest. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff. We may want to have our own meeting with ISOC, PIR and Ethos to get at the facts and dispel the myths. As ALAC/At-Large, we have the platform to ask for that.
If we join the pitchfork-and-torches crowd, we lose our unique voice and place in the ecosystem. We become followers, not leaders. We become enablers (and even spreaders) of FUD, rather than dispellers of FUD.
So, let's find our voice. But first we need to find our collective thoughts.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned.
Marita On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI
Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission.
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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.
Greg, Very well said. I agree with your points, especially "ownership of .ORG by a non-profit has a nice symmetry to it. It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening. But ... there is no reason to presume that ownership by a non-profit is truly in the best interests of .ORG, its users or the general public. If there's a reason to say that ownership by Ethos Capital will serve those interests well, it will need to come from facts and action (much of it from Ethos, PIR and even ISOC); we can't presume that either. We need to be the voice of the end-user, a voice of reason, and a voice for the public interest. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff.'
Greg, I think it's a good idea to revisit your statement ... "More specifically, ownership of .ORG by a non-profit has a nice symmetry to it. It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening. But ... there is no reason to presume that ownership by a non-profit is truly in the best interests of .ORG, its users or the general public. If there's a reason to say that ownership by Ethos Capital will serve those interests well, it will need to come from facts and action (much of it from Ethos, PIR and even ISOC); we can't presume that either." I believe it's a mistake to dismiss the organized grassroots resistance to the Ethos/iSOC transaction with the comment "It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening". There's a principle that's emerging from highly respected community members including well respected people like Esther Dyson and Katherine Maher. The principle is "End users benefit from a long-term commitment to the open and noncommercial internet". There's also historical precedence that this principle was achieved in practice when ICANN gave the stewardship of PIR to iSOC in 2003. End users have enjoyed a long history of benefitting from an open and noncommercial internet ... linux.org, Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org), wikipedia.org ... and on ... and on. This is a fundamental aspect of the Internet that benefits end users. It's important that this benefit to end users is acknowledged ... and protected. It's not simply a warm fuzzy feeling. Benefits to end users of an open and noncommercial internet are real and often threatened by commercial interests. The propose $1 Billion transaction between Ethos and iSOC breaks the principle of ICANN's longterm commitment to a open and noncommercial interest entrusted to iSOC in 2003. It's more than just "nice symmetry" as you state. I think At-Large's reputation would benefit if we acknowledge the well established benefits that end users receive from "a long term commitment to the open and noncommercial internet" in any statement that comes out of this discussion. Cheers! David On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:31 PM Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
I agree that our voice needs to be heard. But what is that voice going to say?
The Malthouse piece is a terrible blueprint for what that voice should be saying. Frankly, it's misguided and even offensive. If anything, we should be pushing back on it -- but by putting out different and better ideas, not by getting into a flame war.
I don't support a hasty conclusion that the public interest aspect of .ORG is being abandoned (easily or not). At best, there is cause for concern. But a rush to judgment is not the way to deal with those concerns. We have the opportunity to frame the discussion, by asking solid, well-grounded questions, by proposing some principles/guideposts, and by providing advice on how to resolve these concerns -- which could mean a sale that allays our concerns and that goes through, or a sale that substantiates our concerns and doesn't go through.
More specifically, ownership of .ORG by a non-profit has a nice symmetry to it. It's easy to like, people are used to it, and it may even stop bad things from happening. But ... there is no reason to presume that ownership by a non-profit is truly in the best interests of .ORG, its users or the general public. If there's a reason to say that ownership by Ethos Capital will serve those interests well, it will need to come from facts and action (much of it from Ethos, PIR and even ISOC); we can't presume that either.
We need to be the voice of the end-user, a voice of reason, and a voice for the public interest. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff. We may want to have our own meeting with ISOC, PIR and Ethos to get at the facts and dispel the myths. As ALAC/At-Large, we have the platform to ask for that.
If we join the pitchfork-and-torches crowd, we lose our unique voice and place in the ecosystem. We become followers, not leaders. We become enablers (and even spreaders) of FUD, rather than dispellers of FUD.
So, let's find our voice. But first we need to find our collective thoughts.
Best regards,
Greg
Greg Shatan greg@isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I am afraid I am starting to feel this way as well. The end user voice that we are here to provide is becoming a glaring absence. And we need to do more than ask for a seat on the PIR board. We should be joining our voice to others asking why and how the public interest aspect of this corner of the ecosystem can be so easily abandoned.
Marita On 1/8/2020 4:33 AM, Vittorio Bertola via CPWG wrote:
Il 2020-01-07 22:22 lists@christopherwilkinson.eu ha scritto:
FYI
Hilyard Has a Historic Chance to Activate ICANN At-Large <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_acti...>
The main reason why almost 20 years ago we fought to create the ALAC and preserve some form of user representation in ICANN after the cancellation of the original At Large election mechanism was exactly to guarantee a voice for the global public interest of billions of Internet users, against possible capture or failure of ICANN's industry self-regulation model. I have rarely seen a case in which that global interest is so clear, so uniformly shared across the community and so loudly voiced. IMHO, failing to act in this case would easily become evidence in favour of those who challenge ALAC's usefulness and ability to fulfill its mission.
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
David Mackey -
Evan Leibovitch -
Greg Shatan -
Jacqueline Morris -
John Laprise -
Jonathan Zuck -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Roberto Gaetano -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vittorio Bertola