<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpf6721d53yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Still I am hoping for the positive outcome through a strong statement (and <span>not discouraged nor disappointed) </span>.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">We should knock every door where we have any hope.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Regards</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Imran</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp231fa9deyahoo_quoted_6197396527" class="ydp231fa9deyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, 8 December 2019, 12:03:45 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> On Dec 7, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr">> Why it will be wrongful for ICANN<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">IANAL, but: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Why we assume prevailing party will be Ethos/PIR.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">We don’t need to assume one way or other. We just have to recognize that the threat of lawsuit has been used to bring ICANN to heel many times in the past, and will likely be the first resort of anyone who’s worried about their actions in the future.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> ICANN has to Intervene in Public Interest at the time when dealing was exposed to it on the basis of lack of transparency, as well as avoiding bidding mechanism.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Nope. ICANN has no duty relative to the terms a private transaction between ISOC and Ethos. There’s no requirement that it be transparent, nor that it be put out to bid.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">ICANN’s duty is to ensure that it not be detrimental to .ORG registrants or the health of the Internet ecosystem. Not the civil society multistakeholder ecosystem, but the actual workings of the Internet.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> Or when they have received Public comments against the price cap removal. Removal of ICANN price control also encouraged the commercial interest magnification.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Yep. But making an argument to ICANN that something bad happened because of something ICANN did in the past will just set ICANN against you. So that’s not a fruitful path.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">> When are writing to ISOC BoT we can also send other statement to the ICANN Board.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Again, there’s no point in sending anything to the ISOC board at this point, they’re done and out. They don’t have any decisions left to make, or actions left to take. All they can do is sit around and wait to see whether money shows up in their bank account.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">ICANN and the relevant Pennsylvania court are the next two decision points.<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"> -Bill<br></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>