[Chapter-delegates] FW: Ethos/PIR/ISoc statements regarding ICANN's rejection of the sale of PIR/.ORG

[Richard Hill]

Please see the message below that I have posted to the Internet Policy list.

I wish to raise two concerns on this list:

1) ISOC states: "we are disappointed that ICANN has acted as a regulatory body it was never meant to be, as laid out in Article 1 of its bylaws"

Who made this interpretation of ICANN's mandate? Shouldn't such an interpretation, in this context, have been consulted with the membership?

2) ISOC states: "We stand by our decision in favor of the transaction".

Is this the Board's view? Does this mean that the Board has rejected the advice recently submitted to it by the Chapters Advisory Council?

Wouldn't it have been better if there had been a consultation with the membership before stating that ISOC still stands in favor of the transaction?

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] 
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 09:42
To: 'internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org'
Subject: Ethos/PIR/ISoc statements regarding ICANN's rejection of the sale of PIR/.ORG

I refer to:

  https://www.keypointsabout.org/blog/statements-in-response-to-april-30-2020-decision-from-icann 


Ethos states: “ICANN has overstepped its purview, which is limited to ensuring routine transfers of indirect control (such as the sale of PIR) do not impact the registry’s security, stability and reliability.” On the contrary, ICANN has fulfilled its mission of ensuring the registry’s security, stability and reliability. If Ethos is convinced of the contrary, it can try to challenge ICANN’s decision through the internal ICANN processes, including the Independent Review Panel.

Ethos refers to “agenda-driven pressure by outside parties”. I suppose that defending the public interest and the rights of .ORG registrants is an agenda. But I think that it is a legitimate agenda, as opposed to the agenda of making money for a few insiders and their partners.

Ethos implies that ICANN has not followed its own clear and specified legal directive. It suffices to read the actual ICANN resolution to see that this is not the case. And, again, Ethos is free to challenge formally ICANN’s decision.

PIR states: “ICANN’s disappointing decision represents a failure to follow its bylaws, processes, and contracts.” As noted above, it suffices to read the actual ICANN resolution to see that this is not the case. If PIR really believes what it says, it should challenge ICANN’s decision by invoking the arbitration clause in the .ORG registry agreement.

ISOC states: “we are disappointed that ICANN has acted as a regulatory body it was never meant to be, as laid out in Article 1 of its bylaws.” I’m not sure who approved this statement. For sure there was no consultation with ISOC’s membership. In my view, ICANN’s formal decision well explains why and how ICANN acted appropriately within its mandate. If ISOC disagrees, it can try to challenge ICANN’s decision through the internal ICANN processes, including the Independent Review Panel.

ISOC states: “We stand by our decision in favor of the transaction”. I take that to be an implicit rejection of the advice that the ISOC Chapters Advisory Council recently submitted to the ISOC Board, even though the Board has not yet formally responded to the advice.

Best,
Richard