<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp5b6cf80ayahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div>Just to add comments on last lines, </div><div><br></div><div>Step down after reversal, to first step in re-establishment of broken trust. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards </div><div><br></div><div>Imran </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div id="ydp5b6cf80ayahoo_quoted_6602330663" class="ydp5b6cf80ayahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, 20:11:19 GMT+5, Sylvain Baya <governance@lists.riseup.net> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp5b6cf80ayiv2875580963"><div><div>Hi all,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Please see my comments below (inline)...<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 11:44 PM, John Levine <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:icggov@johnlevine.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">icggov@johnlevine.com</a>> a écrit :<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> In article <CAJjTEvHZDQtgB9A6bAdWbP-C2dDx7p=<a shape="rect" href="mailto:hcVFwLB2oA4kFVb80Mw@mail.gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">hcVFwLB2oA4kFVb80Mw@mail.gmail.com</a>> you write:<br clear="none">
> >Dear John,<br clear="none">
> >...have you used it yourselves ?<br clear="none">
> ><br clear="none">
> ><a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm</a><br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> Informally, sort of.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">
Dear John (Secretary, the InternetSociety.ORG's BoT),<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Thanks for taking time to respond to my questions. I really appreciate.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...please, can you share your criteria ; as ICANN had shared its in 2002 ?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> >...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a<br clear="none">
> >specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and<br clear="none">
> >For** ?<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> Since it's only a page long, if you don't mind, I'll let you read it<br clear="none">
> yourself. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Brother, is it about reading ? <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...i'll not be surprised to see you suddently telling us that what matter is *only* the contract/agreement [1][2] between the PIR and ICANN.<br clear="none">
__<br clear="none">
[1]: <<a shape="rect" href="https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm</a>><br clear="none">
[2]: <<a shape="rect" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en</a>><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> Keep in mind that those were the criteria that ICANN<br clear="none">
> actually used to evaluate the applications, while the other appears to<br clear="none">
> be some sort of press release.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...i'll, preferably, keep in mind that : it looks as you want to direct our attention to a document, you think you can control better. But, you should keep in mind that we have also already studied it...<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...even though, the following criteria are sufficients : <div><br clear="none">
•—<br clear="none">
• Differenciation from TLDs intended for commercial purposes ; un order to attract registrations from the global non-commercial community : <div>criterion 4 <<a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#4</a>><div>
• Registry's operation responsiveness & Support to needs/concerns/views of the non-commercial Internet User Community (openness, transparence, participatotory un governance procès ses including Bylaws reviews: </div><div>criterion 5 <<a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#5" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#5</a>></div><div>
• Demonstrate (not easy;try anyway) a Level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants particularly those *ctually* using it for non-commercial purposes : </div><div>criterion 6 <<a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#6" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#6</a>><br clear="none">
• Type/Quality/Cost of the Registry Service. The quality of service commitment proposed should match or improve the performance levels of the current .ORG Registry. Affordability is important for many *present* and *future* .ORG registrants. A signifiant consideration to initiale ans renewal registration (and other service) prices. Charged fees to registrars : as low as feasible consistent with good QoS : </div><div>criterion 7 <<a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7</a>><br clear="none">
• ...smoth/stable transition & operation of the .ORG TLD for the *benefit* of *current* & *future* .ORG registrants : </div><div>criterion 10 <<a shape="rect" href="https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#10" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#10</a>><br clear="none">
•—<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> I have no idea where the assertion in the other document that .org was<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> "by and for" non-profits came from. As everyone here certainly knows,<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> .org has always been open non-profits and everyone else, and<br clear="none">
> non-profits have never been a majority of the registrants. RFC 920,<br clear="none">
> which defined the first set of TLDs didn't even mention non-profits,<br clear="none">
> and the later RFC 1591 mentioned non-profits only as an example of<br clear="none">
> entities that "may fit here." Non-profits are very welcome, but no<br clear="none">
> more than anyone else.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> Until 2002 .com, .net, and .org were run together. Originally it was<br clear="none">
> by SRI as a government contractor, then by Network Solutions, later<br clear="none">
> Verisign, also as a government contractor, then in 1998 still by<br clear="none">
> Verisign,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...oh ! la belle époque :'-(<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I also know 'normal' persons who want to back to that 'wonderful' time where they were allowed to sell human beings...<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
That's human's complexity ! ...most of the time unhuman :'-(<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> with a government "cooperative agreement", a contract that<br clear="none">
> doesn't pay anything. Before ISOC, .org had *always* been run exactly<br clear="none">
> the same way as .com and .net and everyone thought that was normal.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
..."everyone" including 'non-commercial' and ICANN's Board members ?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> I see that phrase but it looks like even then people misunderstood<br clear="none">
> what .org is,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
OK, "people misunderstood what .ORG is" and you not.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
What's .ORG ?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
(i)...what the RFC writers have decided then changed<br clear="none">
(ii)...what the users/industry did with it<br clear="none">
(iii)...both of the above </div><div>(iv)...none of the above<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> so I see no basis for it.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
...your understanding of the situation sounds like if <br clear="none">
it puts the Internet(Society.ORG) in real danger.</div><div><br clear="none">
A 'Trust Anchor' is broken, and no one from the BoT to take care :'-(<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
We should ask for a *Referendum* to allow the InternetSociety.ORG's <br clear="none">
members to call the entire BoT to immediately step down.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Shalom,<div class="ydp5b6cf80ayiv2875580963yqt3508304564" id="ydp5b6cf80ayiv2875580963yqtfd78295"><br clear="none">
--sb.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> R's,<br clear="none">
> John<br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="ydp5b6cf80ayqt3508304564" id="ydp5b6cf80ayqtfd54203">---<br clear="none">To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a shape="rect" href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br clear="none">List help: <<a shape="rect" href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>