[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)]

Hi all,

Please see my comments below (inline)...

Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 11:44 PM, John Levine <icggov at johnlevine.com> a écrit :
>
> In article <CAJjTEvHZDQtgB9A6bAdWbP-C2dDx7p=
hcVFwLB2oA4kFVb80Mw at mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >Dear John,
> >...have you used it yourselves ?
> >
> >https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm
>
> Informally, sort of.

Dear John (Secretary, the InternetSociety.ORG's BoT),

Thanks for taking time to respond to my questions. I really appreciate.

...please, can you share your criteria ; as ICANN had shared its in 2002 ?

> >...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there
is a
> >specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and
> >For** ?
>
> Since it's only a page long, if you don't mind, I'll let you read it
> yourself.

Brother, is it about reading ?

...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.
__
[1]: <
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm
>
[2]: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en>

> Keep in mind that those were the criteria that ICANN
> actually used to evaluate the applications, while the other appears to
> be some sort of press release.

...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...

...even though, the following criteria are sufficients :

•—
• Differenciation from TLDs intended for commercial purposes ; un order to
attract registrations from the global non-commercial community :
criterion 4 <https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#4>
• 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:
criterion 5 <https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#5>
• Demonstrate (not easy;try anyway) a Level of support for the proposal
from .ORG registrants particularly those *ctually* using it for
non-commercial purposes :
criterion 6 <https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#6>
• 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 :
criterion 7 <https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7>
• ...smoth/stable transition & operation of the .ORG TLD for the *benefit*
of *current* & *future* .ORG registrants :
criterion 10 <https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#10>
•—

> I have no idea where the assertion in the other document that .org was
>
> "by and for" non-profits came from.  As everyone here certainly knows,
>
> .org has always been open non-profits and everyone else, and
> non-profits have never been a majority of the registrants.  RFC 920,
> which defined the first set of TLDs didn't even mention non-profits,
> and the later RFC 1591 mentioned non-profits only as an example of
> entities that "may fit here."  Non-profits are very welcome, but no
> more than anyone else.
>
> Until 2002 .com, .net, and .org were run together.  Originally it was
> by SRI as a government contractor, then by Network Solutions, later
> Verisign, also as a government contractor, then in 1998 still by
> Verisign,

...oh ! la belle époque :'-(

I also know 'normal' persons who want to back to that 'wonderful' time
where they were allowed to sell human beings...

That's human's complexity ! ...most of the time unhuman :'-(

> with a government "cooperative agreement", a contract that
> doesn't pay anything.  Before ISOC, .org had *always* been run exactly
> the same way as .com and .net and everyone thought that was normal.

..."everyone" including 'non-commercial' and ICANN's Board members ?

> I see that phrase but it looks like even then people misunderstood
> what .org is,

OK, "people misunderstood what .ORG is" and you not.

What's .ORG ?

(i)...what the RFC writers have decided then changed
(ii)...what the users/industry did with it
(iii)...both of the above
(iv)...none of the above

> so I see no basis for it.

...your understanding of the situation sounds like if
it puts the Internet(Society.ORG) in real danger.

A 'Trust Anchor' is broken, and no one from the BoT to take care :'-(

We should ask for a *Referendum* to allow the InternetSociety.ORG's
members to call the entire BoT to immediately step down.

Shalom,
--sb.

>
> R's,
> John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/31a7530c/attachment.htm>