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

[Richard Hill]

Thank you for this, and please see embedded comments below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of 'Andrew Sullivan' via Chapter-
> delegates
> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 00:30
> To: Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] FW: Ethos/PIR/ISoc statements
> regarding ICANN's rejection of the sale of PIR/.ORG
> 
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:34:31PM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
> 
> > Let's agree to disagree. In my view, the statement that ICANN acted
> outside
> > its mandate IS a policy statement that should have been consulted
> with the
> > membership.
> 
> You may certainly disagree with me about it, but I don't see how a
> claim about what ICANN did can be understood as a public position
> paper that would normally entail consultation under
> https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/policy-
> development-process/.

I agree that commenting on what ICANN did does not fall under a narrow
reading of that policy development process.

However, in my view, the allegation that ICANN didn't merely enforce a
contractual clause, but instead exceeded its mandate and violated its
bylaws, is a serious attack on ICANN's legitimacy. In my view, such an
attack should have been consulted with the membership, in keeping with the
spirit, if not the letter, of the cited policy development process.

As I've said before, I think that ISOC has much to gain, and little to lose,
by consulting its membership. Surely it can consult even if is not strictly
required to do so by its written policies?