[governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now

Tue Dec 10 22:00:38 EST 2019

Hi all,

Please see my comments below (inline)...

Le 11/12/2019 à 01:58, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
>> On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort.
>>>
>>> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal.
>>>
>>> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit.
>>>
>>> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary.
>> 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR
> I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? 

Dear Bill,
Thanks for responding.
Maybe ! But each carries different expectations...

>  By (5) do you mean that ISOC continues operating .ORG via PIR?

...no, that's your point (4) and i consider that the PIR can live without
InternetSociety.ORG ; then it's an *unsalable* entity because it was funded
through a grant, with a clear purpose and MUST stay a public good. So
the rational of a separated point (5).

>> 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org
> Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control of .ORG?  Or is that double-negative unintentional?

Thanks for have pointing this typos to my attention :-)
Please my first intent was to write *for-profit* ; but now i should admit...

6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by
any for-profit Org
7) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by
any non-profit Org

>> ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG,
> Mmmm, not exactly.  PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain.  That was on a three-year renewable delegation.  There was never a grant of anything to anyone.

...i'm not sure if i've understood it well, but that's quite something i
have read here [1][2][3].
~°~
"[...]

*A. _BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT_*

The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement
<https://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-04nov99.htm> (covering
the .com, .net, and.org <http://and.org> registries) provides (in
Section 23
<https://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-04nov99.htm#23>) that
the Agreement will expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign)
_*separates legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its
registrar business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement*_,
or May 10, 2001. If that separation occurs within the meaning of Section
23, the Registry Agreement is automatically extended for an additional
four years, or until 10 November 2007.

_*The original purpose of this provision was to create an incentive for
the separation of ownership of NSI's registry and registrar
businesses*_, because that was thought likely to be helpful in
introducing and encouraging registrar competition. _*The main steps
taken to encourage competition*_ were the agreements by NSI to (1)
create the Shared Registration System ("SRS"), and (2) to open that
system to all ICANN-accredited registrars. _*In addition, to ensure that
the NSI registrar business did not have any competitive advantage
because of its affiliation with the registry operator*_, NSI was
required in Section 21 of the Agreement
<https://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-registry-agreement-04nov99.htm#21> (3)
_*to provide all accredited registrars with equal access*_ to the SRS,
and (4) to create an operational firewall between its registry business
and its registrar business _*that prevented any information flow from
its registry business to its registrar business that was not equally
available to all competitive registrars*_.

[...]

*D. _THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS_*

The proposed amendments can be summarized as follows:

1. The existing Registry Agreement covering .com, .net and _*.org would
be split into three separate Agreements, one for each registry*_.

2. The _*.org Registry*_ Agreement would adopt the form of the registry
agreements that will be entered into by _*the new global*_ TLD
_*registry operators*_. _*The term of the .org Registry Agreement would
be shortened by almost one year to 31 December 2002*_, at which time
VeriSign would permanently relinquish its right to operate the .org
registry, *and _an appropriate sponsoring organization representing
non-commercial organizations_ would be sought (through some procedure
yet to be determined) to assume the operation of the registry*. In
addition, *VeriSign _would establish an endowment of $5 million for the
purpose of funding the reasonable operating expenses_ of a _global
registry_ for the _specific use of non-profit organizations_*, and
*would _make global resolution resources available to the operator of
the .org registry_ for _no charge for one year and on terms to be
determined_ thereafter*, for so long as it operates the .com registry.
*The _net result_ of this would be a _.org registry returned_, after
some _appropriate transition period_, to its _originally intended
function_ as a _registry operated by and for non-profit organizations_*.

[...]"
__
[1]:
<https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm>
[2]: <https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-04-02-en>
[3]:
<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2001-04-02-en>
~°~

>> by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN
> Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really…  Their actions were dictated to them by ICANN.  In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer.  .ORG was the smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of view.  ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation.  So it was an action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was performed by them.

...it's something like that, fortunately archived here [1][2][3].

> These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be about putting information before people clearly.  While I was there, I was not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in.

...i get your point thanks, no worry :-)

>> ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial"
> So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold?  

Yes !

> Do you believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR?

Again...problem : InternetSociety.ORG have already decided to leave the
domain name business :-/
...so, i can not force it to continue to benefit to the grant, where
it's possible
to retart the 2002 process with now a membership-based non-profit Org with
.ORG's registrants as members (cPIR - common Public Interest Registry).

Please have a look below (/the last five points propose a base for the
cPIR/)...

•—•
|• Stop/Pause/Withdraw that *privatized* 'public interest' transaction; and
|
|• Include InternetSociety.ORG's constituencies in future decision-making
| processes; or before
|
|• InternetSociety.ORG MUST add into the deal a condition which could
| permit to maintain the relationship between theNew.ORG and the
| community of users|registrants.
| How to do it ?
| Again, by co-signing a document of public commitment to serve the
| community of registrants at least as the PIR.ORG was serving. Co-signers :
| TheNew.ORG (within owner), InternetSociety.ORG and the Community of
| registrants. ICANN.ORG ?
|
| Then (first proposed by Christian @),
|• Create a membership-based non-profit Org, with .ORG's registrants as
| automatic members ;
|• The policies used to operate the .ORG registry shall be discussed and
| adopted by the members, in consensus-based approach, in respect to
| the fundamental principles (ToBeDefined—Steve)
|• The actual operator of the .ORG registry shall continue its operations
| during a transition period of one year (2020) ;
|• The transition period shall serve to structure the cPIR (commons Public
| Internet Registry)
|• The cPIR shall begin to operate the .ORG registry at the start of the
| second year (2021).
•—•

Hope this clarifies something.

Thanks.

Shalom,
--sb.

>
>                                 -Bill
>
-- 
Best Regards !                         
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> | <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/e3551606/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/e3551606/attachment.sig>