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

[Richard Hill]

Dear Christian,

Thank you for this. I have on my "to do list" to propose something regarding this situation for ISOC-CH to consider. I will use what you write below as a basis.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian [mailto:cdel at firsthand.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:33
> To: Richard Hill; 'Chapter Delegates'
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FW: Ethos/PIR/ISoc statements
> regarding ICANN's rejection of the sale of PIR/.ORG
> 
> A lot of things could be better.
> 
> - The chapters issued the Advisories - which I was dubious about to be
> frank partly because events I was  sure would overtake them rather
> rapidly.
> 
> But having done that  the chapters will expect a response from the ISOC
> board based on the terms of those advisories. Chapters have a duty to
> consider that response seriously.
> 
> As events have moved on regarding the PIR sale. We need a few things to
> be settled from this point forward.
> 
> Chapters request the ISOC board :
> 
> - to confirm immediately they will continue to hold PIR and not seek to
> sell PIR but establish a framework in consultation and agreement of the
> community including the registrants of .org and .ngo for the management
> of the resources entrusted to PIR that is binding not just on ISOC as
> owner but on any future owner and PIR.
> 
> This is to ensure stability in PIR and in ISOC for the next period and
> provide a binding framework and guarantees should ISOC decide to divest
> all or part of PIR in the future.
> 
> - to establish an independent "lessons to learn" investigation into the
> PIR sale to inform the community of what happened and outline
> recommendations for a timetable of further actions to report by
> September 1st 2020. This to be considered by the board, and Advisory
> communities to establish actions with a view to completing these by
> March 30th 2021.
> 
> 
> Christian
> On 01/05/2020 08:46, Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
> subscribed
> > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
> Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
> > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/