<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Milton</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">taking from your comment</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">"</font><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">there
was no meaningful difference between the way PIR was run and
most other gTLD registries was run, both in terms of pricing and
service."</span></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">May I humbly ask, if indeed there is no
difference between .org and any other gtld, why do you and NCUC
propose putting conditions on how any owner of .org may run its
business in future? why not just let market logic determine such
things - as you seem to normally believe?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"> I am of course talking about your and
NCUC's position -- which you rather un-humbly claim to be
superior to the ill-informed position taken by the IGC --
whereby it seeks to allow the sale if certain conditions are met
by the prospective buyer of .org. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">It may also be asked, should there these
conditions be put on all gtlds?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">If not, then is your/NCUC's position only
for the sake of taking a position (given that almost everyone
has taken a position on this issue) -- as you have accused IGC
and others of outrage for the sake of outrage!<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">BTW, just for clarification, a much less
important question, are you proposing these conditions be put on
.org buyer by ICANN or these just be a set of undertakings by
the new buyer?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">thanks and regards</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/12/19 12:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR07MB45757695583AEED45D832CB2A1520@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sheetal:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See
comments in line below:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Subject: Letter from the Internet
Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Principally,
we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private
entity investment firm would significantly alter the
Domain Name System and weaken ISOC.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would
the transfer of control of one medium-size TLD
registry significantly alter the DNS? The letter loses
credibility right off the bat by making claims that
cannot be backed up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">PIR
played an important role, as the only remaining
non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in
serving as a counterbalance against commercial
exploitation.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which
was a fulfillment of the obligation in the original
RFP), there was no meaningful difference between the
way PIR was run and most other gTLD registries was
run, both in terms of pricing and service. This
observation both unfairly casts aspersions on all
commercial registries while falsely idealizing PIR.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">PIR ran
.ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users,
whereas other top-level domains are run by private
companies with purely financial objectives.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior?
And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to
continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that
things will be better?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">PIR, as
a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what
was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud
history of doing just that.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price
caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property
takedown procedures.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">However,
PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider
influence. It allowed ISOC to take an even more active
role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In
relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose some
of its ability to directly impact how millions of people
around the world positively experience the Internet
every day, and we think that is a great pity.<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC
thinking that it knows what is good for ISOC better
than ISOC’s trustees and staff do. This also shows a
lack of knowledge. Running one TLD registry out of
2000 with less than 5% share of world registrations
does not really do much to “shape internet
infrastructure.” Supporting IETF shapes internet
infrastructure, running ORG does not. It also ignores
ISOC’s somewhat valid concern that tying their
finances to a particular line of business distorts
their objectivity regarding the future of the
internet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">We ask
that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all
correspondence and documents exchanged with ICANN in
relation to the proposed change in control of PIR. In
addition, we ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its
website any filings (including motions and petitions) in
the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court relating to the change
in status of the PIR.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
This focus on the machinations around the sale totally
misses the target. We want
<b>forward-looking</b> information and commitments: we
want Ethos to tell us how they will fulfill the
obligations in the 2002 RFP and we want them to make
new commitments, embedded in the Registry Agreement,
that will protect ORG registrants.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">We
expect an organization that operates in the public
interest, and who promotes the values of openness,
trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those
values when making major decisions.
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM:
Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with
ISOC’s decision making process and the absence of a
forward-looking agenda. Demand something meaningful,
please! Wish IGC had paid more attention to advice
from those of us actually active within the DNS policy
environment.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>