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

[Sheetal Kumar]

Dear all,

Thanks for the engagement on the poll. You are right, there are many
options that could have been proposed and it's too late now to change the
poll. The aim was to provide some clarity on a way forward on the main
options, and not to create confusion by providing all possible options.
Apologies if you feel the most important options weren't captured but
hopefully it hasn't created more confusion. On the results, there is more
support for calling for a halt then there is for calling just for
transparency, about double the support in fact. There are 39 complete
responses in total.

So, I suggest we move forward with discussing the text already suggested on
the other thread by Ayden, which, as it turns out, calls for a complete
halt to the sale. If you want to make changes, please suggest so there.
I'll propose a timeframe and way forward on that thread.

Best
Sheetal.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 03:37, Michael Palage <mike at palage.com> wrote:

> Hello Bill,
>
> A little legal clarification.  The original Registry Contract with
> NSI/VeriSign (1999) bundled all three TLDs together. When VRSN was given a
> presumptive renewal in connection with .COM, .NET and .ORG were split off
> into separate registry agreements. VRSN was not able to bid on .ORG, but it
> was able to bid on and then win the .NET RFP which is now a presumptive
> renewal contract.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <
> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:58 PM
> To: Sylvain BAYA <abscoco at gmail.com>
> Cc: governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now
>
>
>
> > 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?  By (5) do you mean that ISOC
> continues operating .ORG via PIR?
>
> > 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?
>
> > ...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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > ; 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?  Do you
> believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR?
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 


*Sheetal Kumar*
Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F
E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/fff458dd/attachment.htm>