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

Wed Dec 11 14:36:08 EST 2019

Hi,

How many members are on the IGC list at present after the recent best
bits/IGC rationalization.

Curious to see what "39 responses" represents of the total membership.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 10:51 AM Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> 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|
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/98316546/attachment.htm>