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

Fri May 1 05:33:56 PDT 2020

* Icann agrees with the Internet community *

 In a decision ending an alleged and never-consulted sale of the .org to a for-profit company, Icann announced that it will not allow such a transaction.

 Finally, the Internet community clearly realizes that in a multi-stakeholder governance system, even the highest corporate employees cannot act alone in making decisions that run counter to the spirit of the Internet Society.

 A lesson that the staff must assimilate at all levels.  Employees of the Internet Society work for, must consult with, the community and serve its interests.

 Icann's decision implies, as Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, of the Internet Society rightly says, "... that the transaction cannot and will not continue"

 Icann's decision here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-board-withholds-consent-for-a-change-of-control-of-the-public-interest-registry-pir

 #GovernanceIsCommunity

Carlos Vera
Ecuador

> El 1 may. 2020, a la(s) 05:42, Christian via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> escribió:
> 
> I stress that these points are my immediate reaction and not UK ISOC  deliberated. So are for discussion.
> 
> A lot will now depend on how the ISOC board conducts itself over the next few days. We should encourage best practice in transparency and accountability and encourage reflection and open engagement.
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
>> On 01/05/2020 11:32, Christian via Chapter-delegates wrote:
>> 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/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/