11:47:31 From Claudia Ruiz : Welcome to the Consolidated Policy Working Group Single issue Call: "ISOC Sells PIR"
12:00:54 From David Mackey : Hi All
12:02:06 From Heidi Ullrich : Welcome, All.
12:02:32 From Maritza Aguero : Hello everybody!
12:03:07 From LILIAN IVETTE DE LUQUE : Hello all
12:04:07 From Raymond Mamattah : My surname is pronounced Ma-ma-ttah, not how it is called
12:04:52 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Should be an interesting meeting but most of them are.
12:05:29 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : hello all
12:05:40 From Maritza Aguero : Hello Everyone!
12:06:34 From Bukola Oronti : Hello All
12:08:08 From Heidi Ullrich : Ethos Capitol: https://ethoscapital.com/
12:08:43 From Evan Leibovitch : Hi all. It's 4am in Manila and I'm exhausted so I will likely not last for the duration. The is a serious issue that IMO threatens public trust in ISOC.
12:09:13 From Michel TCHONANG : Hi every one
12:09:18 From Judith Hellerstein : HI All from Berlin. Leaving tomorrow morning
12:09:49 From Holly Raiche : I am assuming that the price is in $US?
12:10:01 From Judith Hellerstein : yes USD
12:10:03 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The optics on the pricecap lift are not good.
12:10:44 From Evan Leibovitch : It is unlikely that ICANN will impede this since the owners are not criminals and existing .org registrants will not be immediately impacted
12:10:48 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : Ethos Capital paid $1,135 million for purchase of the PIR from ISOC. ISOC will invest this in a trust which will yield an annual income of $45 million. This will be run through an independent trust whose composition has yet to be determined. Gonzalo stated the board was open to suggestions regarding the trust structure and wanted to create it in a transparent process. After Ethos approached ISOC, the board discussed putting the PIR up for public auction. Ethos told ISOC that if there was a pubic auction, Ethos would withdraw their offer and would not participate in the auction, so ISOC decided not to have one. Additional justifications for not having a public auction were that a public auction would have reduced the value of the PIR and make the PIR staff feel nervous. ISOC never consulted anyone in the past about whether to sell the PIR because they never intended to do so. They were surprised by the Ethos offer.
12:12:19 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Only about 25% of .ORG seem to be reregistrations. People seem to register their .ORG and hold on to it.
12:12:43 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : Retention rate for .orgs is 82%
12:13:08 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : It ranges from 78% to 82% each year. It has the highest retention rate of any TLD, next being .com at 78%
12:13:45 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : That's the blended rewal rate. .ORG first year renewal is also stronger than .COM but not so strong as some of the geoTLDs and ccTLDs.
12:13:58 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : It is definitely a gTLD apart.
12:14:21 From Jonathan Zuck : PA Orphan Court
12:14:50 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : General position of ISOC leaders who made the deal is .org is not any different from .com or any other type of TLD
12:15:00 From Evan Leibovitch : My suggestion is that ICANN suspend approval of the ownership change until its current owner (ISOC) demonstrate that the community accountability and consultation agreed in 2002 has been engaged.
12:15:20 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Interesting suggestion, Evan.
12:16:17 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The problem is that the whole thing is looking like the Manhattan Island purchase in the industry but to people outside the industry, it is irrelevant.
12:16:25 From Jacob Malthouse : Evan — NTEN has just filed a complaint to the Empowered Community asking for a review based on that.
12:16:48 From Evan Leibovitch : We have to keep this within the bounds that ICANN can operate.
12:17:13 From Jacob Malthouse : The 2002 commitments and the question of who knew what when are critical to the integrity of ICANN policy making and how that then flows into application processes and then into contracting and enforcement.
12:17:52 From Jacob Malthouse : This is what the EC was built to look into. Over arching structural risk issues.
12:18:21 From Holly Raiche : @ Leon - what questions has the Board asked?
12:18:46 From Evan Leibovitch : Enforcing the terms of the 2002 delegation and award of .org to ISOC are in scope of ICANN.
12:18:57 From Jacob Malthouse : Exactly
12:19:04 From Jacob Malthouse : Over 10 other bids.
12:19:37 From Holly Raiche : @ Jacob - I think Olivier said there weren’t other bids for this transaction
12:19:45 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Most of the registrations in .ORG are on US registrars so what may happen, if things go badly, is that registrants outside the US will begin to redirect to their local ccTLD domain name and begin to rebrand. The process will take about four years but .ORG may end up losing registrations if it goes badly and the gTLD develops a kind of taint.
12:19:45 From Jacob Malthouse : There were 10 other bids for .org in 2002
12:19:52 From Holly Raiche : Thanks Jacob
12:19:58 From Jacob Malthouse : :)
12:20:03 From Richard Barnes : There were multiple bids this time as well
12:20:23 From Raymond Mamattah : I think if Ethos Capital doesnt think they have anything to gain, they would not have made that offer.
12:20:37 From Holly Raiche : @ Richard - were there ANY bids for this transaction
12:20:38 From Jonathan Zuck : And there was some competitive bidding now as well. It’s one of those hair splitting things to say there wasn’t
12:20:43 From Judith Hellerstein : What about .ngo and .ong?
12:20:48 From Jacob Malthouse : Sold
12:20:51 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Dead on arrival.
12:20:54 From avri doria : Holly, questions are still being formed.
12:20:54 From Raoul : hi, please, is here an french channel? tks
12:21:07 From LizO : Even if the sale is legal, it is highly unethical and ICANN should advise against the sale because it goes against the principles of multistakeholderism in the IG, especially going with the history of 2002 on how it was given .org.
12:21:22 From Raymond Mamattah : I think if Ethos Capital doesnt think they have anything to gain, they would not have made that offer. Moreover, what are the legal implications if ISOC considers other bids?
12:21:30 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : .ORG still has the momentum in the market for public intererest/do-gooder domain names.
12:21:32 From Holly Raiche : Thanks Avri - Are there opportunities for what is said here to have impact on those questions?
12:21:41 From Evin Erdoğdu : Draft by Roberto Gaetano: https://community.icann.org/x/0ZczBw
12:21:44 From Claudia Ruiz : @Raoul we only have EN &ES on this call, apologies
12:21:46 From Jacob Malthouse : And moreover, ICANN and the community have been engaged in a process of back-casting. Reviewing old contracts for consistency, including sTLDs.
12:22:02 From Judith Hellerstein : @raoul there may be. Check the agenda. There is also captions, real time transcriptions
12:22:06 From avri doria : Holly, I believe so, but there is not much time in the timeline.
12:22:12 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : ISOC's Andrew Sullivan stated they only had Ethos Capital's offer at the time of negotiation. He said ISOC had had previous offers for the PRI, but none had ever been so "substantial". He did not state there were other offers competing with the Ethos offer at the same time.
12:22:19 From Roberto : Not anymore on the PIR Board now, actually
12:22:35 From Judith Hellerstein : @raoul click on closed captions
12:22:48 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : @Judith, .org .NGO and .ong all run by PIR
12:23:43 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : NGOs targeting specific countries use the ccTLD for enhanced credibility.
12:23:47 From Jonathan Zuck : And .foundation, I think
12:24:06 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Global NGOs use .ORG for global credibility.
12:24:12 From Judith Hellerstein : @raoul and others, a text version of the RTT is here— https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
12:24:39 From Hadia : Thank you Leon
12:25:09 From Raoul : ok thanks @judith, you save my life today
12:25:11 From David Mackey : @John regardless of the transaction outcome, .ORG, PIR and ISOC are taking hit to their credibility due to the process and poor communication on the process
12:25:15 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : No igt is early in our morning and the working day probably has Holly booked
12:25:49 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @David Yep. But I think that the endusers/registrants don't even bother with all this as long as their domain name keeps working.
12:25:51 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : AU = 0725am
12:26:20 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The whole geography of registrations is quite complex and driven by different dynamics.
12:26:59 From David Mackey : @john, that’s the key question of whether the Ethos will have a successful investment in PIR. It’s a brand value only (emotion and reputation)
12:28:19 From Evan Leibovitch : Thanks for letting me ask, Olivier.
12:28:27 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @David It has got a business with a lot of renewals due to the golden handcuffs effect. Some registrants cannot afford to lose their .ORG but there's also a brand protection set of registrations. There are even some speculative regs but not as much as .COM or .NET
12:28:40 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : @David - part of the debate regards whether it is just a brand value or represents something more. Many hold it represents more and therefore regard the PIR as morally or politically different
12:29:36 From David Mackey : @Brandt - Agreed. There’s short to medium lockin with the branding of any domain name. Hence, this is value that Ethos is trying to capture and monetize
12:29:42 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Brandt The moral/political argument is one that many of the ccTLDs faced before becoming dominant in their markets.
12:30:25 From BillBill Jouris : The golden handcuffs also involve the effort required to get the word out to anybody and everybody who is, or was, interested in finding the organization. Not to mention updating all the documents which reference the website. An entirely non-trivial exercise.
12:30:30 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : It generally takes about four to five years for the effects of these decisions to show up in the stats.
12:31:46 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : General opinion within ISOC is switching to a different TLD is cost/resource prohibitive unless the organisation is small or cost of .org exceeds $1000/yr
12:32:18 From Evan Leibovitch : @John it's not just golden handcuffs. I submit that the special nature and trust position of .org has led to an unusual level of loyalty.
12:32:21 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Don't think that ISOC has a good grasp of the dynamics in domain name markets.
12:33:03 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Evan It is a ccTLD style of loyalty. People regard the .ORG as "their" TLD in the way that they don't with .COM etc
12:33:19 From Evan Leibovitch : Agreed
12:33:32 From BillBill Jouris : For end users, non-profits' domain names matter because WE have to be able to find the organization. Even when we have an old reference we are working from
12:33:36 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : What worries me is that loyalty is very fragile.
12:34:14 From Evan Leibovitch : The loyalty is IMO based on trust, and that trust is evaporating
12:34:34 From LizO : Even if NPOC is best suited to address this issue ALAC also has a strong say in this simply as end users. Reponding to the presentatiom
12:34:36 From United Nations Foundation : The public interest status of the .ORG gTLD has been a major factor in choosing it (over, say, .INT) for many years now.
12:34:38 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : I've seen what happens when users don't consider their cCTLD as being their ccTLD. It was not pleasant.
12:35:26 From Evan Leibovitch : My guess is that the ccTLDs with "ownership" are also nonprofits (ie CIRA)
12:35:27 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : Some in this debate regard the domain name as primarily a marketing asset, like a logo. Others regard it as a core part of the organisation's identity and digital nervous system, and therefore not so changeable.
12:36:39 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Brandt In the October 2019 web usage survey I quoted in a book (Domnomics), there's a substantial redirect percentage where .ORG owners are redirecting to websites in other TLDs.
12:36:46 From David Mackey : @Evan side question - Can CIRA go the same way as PI in the future? non-profit changed to for-profit
12:36:56 From David Mackey : PIR
12:38:01 From Hadia : I guess one of the worries of end users would be trust. To what extent would end users trust a for profit entity to act in the public interest.
12:38:06 From Evan Leibovitch : Jonathan is mistaken on a small but significant point. Dot-org was created, not explicitly for nonprofits, but as a catchall for registrants who didn't belong in .com, .net, .gov etc
12:38:16 From Jonathan Zuck : So we could just enforce questions that come from the NPOC?
12:38:21 From Jonathan Zuck : Or Mozilla?
12:38:37 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Hadia End users generally just want their domain name to work.
12:38:44 From Holly Raiche : We won’t be adding to the Board’s questions - we will be asking that the Board take up our suggestions.
12:38:51 From Seun Ojedeji : As I look at those questions, I wonder if the recipient is ICANN or PIR, am really not sure there is much ICANN can do to address those questions. I am not sure that we have a mechanism to provide advice to PIR? if yes then I think they will be a good recipient for the questions.
12:39:10 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Evan That was largely before ccTLDs became dominant in their countries. (Pre-2007 Domain Tasting etc)
12:39:31 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : @John - that may be so. I'm simply trying to clarify the competing positions in the debate.
12:40:25 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Brandt I tend to have a different view of the stats as that's what I do. I also run web usage surveys and the results tend to be very different to the domain name numbers that most see.
12:40:41 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Makes me a bit more cynical. :)
12:41:07 From Holly Raiche : First - can we make PICs enforceable (by compliance?) and then are we asking that ICANN insist on certain clauses in the sale documentation - the only way that they would be enforceable
12:41:23 From Hadia : @John I guess it goes a little bit beyond this - especially if we take into consideration some of the issues brought up in relation to possible forms of censorship
12:41:28 From Evan Leibovitch : @John, unlikely that CIRA or others would or could go to PIR route. For them it is the national government, not ICANN, that delegates the operation of the ccTLD, and it has a public interest mandate in its criteria that ICANN lacks.
12:42:28 From Holly Raiche : Agree with Evan - for ccTLDs, it is individual governments that set the terms.
12:42:47 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Evan The local governments would be very upset with anything like that. Some like .CO and .ME and .TV already were repurposed but the web is splitting into a ccTLD/.COM market with about 20% between them in most countries.
12:43:14 From Holly Raiche : @ AVri - would the questions include a question on the enforceability for commitments?
12:43:27 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : .COM is plateauing in most markets and the non-COM legacy gTLDs are dependent on brand protection regs.
12:43:36 From Carlton Samuels : CW raised an interesting conundrum. ISOC chapters are independent entities speaking to end user interests within the ICANN remit. Would a ISOC with a different funding model be impactful on the views of its chapters?
12:43:50 From avri doria : BTW for anyone who knew I was also on the ISOC-NY BOD, I have resigned that duty and my seat on the ISOC Chapters Advisory Council to insure I had no conflict of interest.
12:44:01 From David Mackey : End Users do care about open and transparent processes involving global public interest organizations
12:44:48 From Jay Sulzberger : My name is Jay Sulzberger. I am against the proposed deal because it would formally and completely violate both the charter of ISOC and the charter of the present not-for profit Public Interest
12:44:58 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @David Yes but that does not necessarily extend to domain names. The .ORG has a special status due to its association with non-commercial operations.
12:45:34 From Evan Leibovitch : Yes. Starting with the likes of .tv, .fm etc some countries have gone the cash grab route and treat their ccTLD as a gTLD. There seems quite the split between the paths.
12:45:42 From Holly Raiche : Thanks Avri. And my question - again - would the Board be asking for enforceable commitments along the lines being discussed?
12:45:54 From David Mackey : @John I think it applies to cases where non-profit regristries are converted into for-profit
12:46:26 From Holly Raiche : @ Marita - PICs are enforceable commitments - well and truly within ICANN’s remit
12:46:32 From Jay Sulzberger : Registry. Part of the charter of ISOC reads
12:47:01 From Jay Sulzberger : ISOC is for a free and open Internet. An Internet for everybody.
12:47:12 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @David The optics on this are very bad in that respect. If registrants think they are being used, they dump domain names quickly. Because the business runs on a yearly basis, that sentiment won't really become apparent until this time next year.
12:47:23 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : the B corporation is annual renewable
12:47:30 From Holly Raiche : We aren’t talking about PIR - it is what ICANN ASK from PIR
12:47:47 From Jacob Malthouse : I started the first B Corp in Canada and know it well. It’s not really fit for this purpose unless the registry agreement is amended to also allow for community oversight.
12:47:55 From Evan Leibovitch : I suggest staying within the bounds of what ICANN can do and grounds to block / suspend the transaction
12:48:37 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The danger with community oversight, unless it is well founded, is that it will be infiltrated by lobbyists.
12:48:39 From Marita Moll : @Alan -- the volume of mail is crushing. I am also on several lists.
12:48:42 From Jonathan Zuck : Agree Evan
12:48:46 From Laurin Weissinger : agree, there is an insane amount of interest, predominantly criticism.
12:48:49 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Think ICANN^n
12:49:05 From Holly Raiche : @ Evan - totally agree. So let’s focus on what ICANN can do - which is insist on enforceable commitments along the 2002 lines
12:49:12 From David Mackey : “Faith in the Internet” +1
12:49:14 From Jonathan Zuck : Has that faith been justified is the question I guess.
12:49:21 From Jay Sulzberger : By new law and new custom were the .org registry to be a for private organization, then that organization is required to place the interest of The Owners first and foremost no matter what the new for profit says.
12:49:30 From Richard Barnes : internet.org
12:49:49 From Evan Leibovitch : It's already evaluated safety and stability. IMO We need to concentrate on enforcement of the delegation agreement terms made in 2002.
12:49:50 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : I could probably dig up a list of for-profit orgs using .ORG from that OCtober 2019 web usage survey.
12:50:17 From Jacob Malthouse : Agree Evan. And the Empowered Community has authority to act on this.
12:50:23 From Jonathan Zuck : RIAA.org, MPAA.ORG, NRA.org for example
12:50:27 From Holly Raiche : I’d rather not rely on good sentiments from Ethos
12:50:36 From Heidi Ullrich : CircleID blog from Ethos: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191125_showing_our_ethos_with_org/
12:50:44 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : A key promise of Ethos Capital is that they will increase marketing of the .org name
12:51:10 From Jacob Malthouse : Yes Erik is on the record as saying his top priority is increasing registrations.
12:51:14 From Jay Sulzberger : Here is one specific direct harm, note that my opposition is not based on any one speculative possible harm, it is rather that the formal obligations of a for profit are different from the present Public Interest Registry, .
12:51:15 From Jonathan Zuck : Interesting
12:51:17 From Holly Raiche : @ Brandt - that isn’t the commitment that is being sought
12:51:19 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Alan The volume discounting was far more damaging.
12:51:32 From Marita Moll : @ Alan -- that would be in their financial interest - to market .org to everyone. But we can't stop that if this deal goes ahead.
12:51:40 From Jacob Malthouse : Yes, $1 domains have been the scourge of the new gTLD round.
12:51:46 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : @Holly, it's a constant promise in all their press releases and in ISOC's
12:52:02 From David Mackey : +1 @Alan
12:52:12 From Holly Raiche : Agree with Marita - Of course they will market the name. But that is not what was in the 2002 commitments.
12:52:21 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Very well said, Alan..
12:52:38 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jacob Most of those $1 regs do not renew and attract all sorts of misuse and abuse.
12:52:42 From Jay Sulzberger : But my specific harm now is different: Today there are no qualifications, nor credentials, required to get a .org domain name. Despite the suggestion of the very name of .org.
12:53:05 From Evan Leibovitch : Of course that's going to happen. After this transaction .org becomes Just Another gTLD.
12:53:07 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jay It is a gTLD rather than a managed TLD.
12:53:40 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : You can have a managed TLD with low numbers or an unmanaged/generic TLD with high numbers.
12:53:43 From Jacob Malthouse : Here’s the key section in the application: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section8.html
12:53:54 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : I agree with Evan's earlier comments as well.
12:53:55 From avri doria : Speaking personally, I think that proposing PICs is more up to PIR/Ethos than it is for ICANN to impose.
12:54:22 From Marita Moll : Yes, +1 for Evan's comments from me
12:54:31 From Jonathan Zuck : @Avri but could ICANN suggest they propose some PICs. They didn’t even pick up the whole new contract, right?
12:54:32 From Jay Sulzberger : As far as I can tell today there is only one not for profit registry supervised by an organization dedicated, formally, and often, really, for a Free and Opn Internet. An Internet for Everybody.
12:54:57 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Christopher That really went will when .EU got plundered in the landrush the people speccing the operation didn't realise how ruthless the domain name business is when it comes to free money.
12:55:04 From Evan Leibovitch : Nothing stopping Ethos-run .org from even going the .xyz route and selling cut rate domains (everyone is concentrating on price increases)
12:55:09 From Holly Raiche : @ Avri - okay, drop the term. But enforceable commitments are what we’d want
12:55:27 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes @Avri
12:55:46 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Evan .XYZ is not the worst of the new gTLDs. It is the only real generic gTLD out of the 2012 round apart from .WEB.
12:56:07 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : It is picking up regs in the developing world markets.
12:56:16 From Evan Leibovitch : It was an example : )
12:56:21 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : That's because it is cheaper than a .COM
12:56:39 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Not everyone can afford a .COM
12:56:45 From Carlton Samuels : @Avri. That happens to be an inconvenient truth/fact. Plus IMHO, ICANN has show very little appetite to enforce even those registries offer.
12:57:21 From Evan Leibovitch : Jay's points are useful but really hard to apply as ICANN action.
12:57:51 From Jonathan Zuck : @Carlton, we need to fix that, not accept that
12:58:02 From Marita Moll : Yes, @Evan, we have to focus on actionable remedies
12:58:04 From Holly Raiche : @ Evan - so I think we are back to ICANN asking for enforceable commitments along the 2002 lines?
12:58:30 From Evan Leibovitch : Holly, I think that is the only path in-scope
12:59:12 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : the .NGO .ONG need credentials to register
12:59:38 From David Mackey : @Evan ICANN change enforceable commitments in the future after the transaction goes through?
12:59:45 From Jonathan Zuck : I REALLY like the idea of trying to get commercial activity out of .ORG. Not sure how to do it. I’d love to see a cap on resale at cost or some such thing.
12:59:57 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Do we need to send advice to the ICANN Board and the ISOC Board?
13:00:11 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : There was no demand for .ONG and .NGO. The whole thing was due to an artificial scarcity created by Domain Tasting/drop catching.
13:00:16 From David Mackey : Sorry @Evan CAN ICANN change ...
13:00:27 From Holly Raiche : @ John - it is possible for the transaction to go ahead and give ISOC the money - as long as the documentation includes enforceable commitments along the 2002 lines
13:00:59 From Evan Leibovitch : It can (and should) hold ISOC to its 2002 agreement.
13:01:00 From Roberto : @nadira I believe the the new property will drop .NGO/.ONG
13:01:13 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : @Maureen must send it to both, because Most of ALSes are ISOC chapters
13:02:17 From Evan Leibovitch : Not sure if it's "most" but last time I counted it was at least one third of ALSs
13:02:18 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Roberto It will only a be a hit to registrants as .NGO and .ONG haven't really performed well as an alternative to .ORG
13:02:29 From Jay Sulzberger : and which allows anybody who can pay the fee for a .org name. We need such a registry else the Internet is no longer for evrybody.
13:03:12 From Roberto : @John Agree
13:04:33 From Holly Raiche : Bill is correct - unless they are contractually bound to certain things, a for profit organisation is just that
13:05:12 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : What is really worrying is that this is turning into a Scorpion and the Frog situation.
13:05:12 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : @Evan 1/3 is still good number to concern about
13:06:52 From Jonathan Zuck : @John, agree. How do we get some enforceable commitments on the scorpion
13:07:14 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : Those terms would also need judicial approval as PIR is a trust, and this involves change of beneficiary, which has to be court approved in PA
13:07:37 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jonathan I'm only a stats head :) But seriously though, the deal needs to be reviewed and the actions of the key players need to be investigated.
13:08:36 From Jonathan Zuck : @John, sure. We need to focus on the At-Large voice here, and how to get what we want.
13:08:42 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : It should be frozen immediately until there is transparency on the issue.
13:08:55 From Jonathan Zuck : @Even, agree. No unicorns
13:09:13 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jonathan What worries me is that the market will destroy .ORG because of this shift.
13:09:33 From Jonathan Zuck : @John, similar to Alan’s concern
13:10:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Well said @Evan
13:10:37 From Holly Raiche : @Brandt - so are you saying that ICANN cannot insist on terms of an ICANN/PIR arrangement
13:10:51 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jonathan Yep. But this is based on what I've seen with domain name stats and markets for the last 20 years or so. .ORG in in a Ceasar's Wife situation.
13:11:21 From Jay Sulzberger : No Evan, ICANN can get enough money to support ISOC. So why are we worried about what money ISOC. Impose a tiny tax on registries. Use that money
13:11:32 From Jay Sulzberger : to support ISOC.
13:11:37 From BillBill Jouris : Advice to the Board (short form): for the moment, Just Say No.
13:11:54 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jay all the legacy gTLDs are losing regs and in trouble other than .COM
13:11:56 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : @Holly - no, but that some terms would require additional approval from a court. ICANN could design its terms to require or avoid court approval, as it chose.
13:12:03 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : what about the 2019 .org renewable
13:12:25 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Nadira Quite good at the moment.
13:12:32 From Sarah Kiden : :-
13:12:34 From Holly Raiche : Thanks Brandt - so we need to stay within the art of the possible
13:13:18 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : ISOC expect $45 million/year forever from this deal
13:13:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : under the Framework of Interpretation of RFC 1591 of course the considerations of what is known as Significantly Interested Parties does come into play.
13:14:08 From BillBill Jouris : Might be interesting to look at ISOC's budget, to see what they are spending money on.
13:14:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and that is in ICANN remit to explore
13:14:38 From Jay Sulzberger : Let ICANN tax registries. There will be enough money for ISOC.
13:14:45 From Jay Sulzberger : Why not.
13:14:59 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Cheryl - It's five year mission, to seek out new TLDs and opportunities? (Star Trek goes ICANN) :)
13:15:27 From Evan Leibovitch : We're not here to reinvent ICANN. Not this moment at least.
13:15:53 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes, @Evan, to Marita’s point, we don’t have the time to do so.
13:15:54 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jay a lot of the new gTLD registries seem to be zombies waiting for takeover by portfolio operators
13:16:03 From Jay Sulzberger : Evan the other side here proposes to end ICANN, and end ISOC, and the free and open Internet.
13:16:32 From Jacob Malthouse : The other NTEN complaint focusses on whether PIR or staff knew about the sale before re-negotiating .org contract.
13:16:47 From Jacob Malthouse : They say no, but ICANN has the right to ask for information as part of the ownership change.
13:17:09 From Jay Sulzberger : We must fight the war. Not fight irrelevant engagements on ground the opposition choose, under rules of engagement written by the opposition.
13:17:20 From Jacob Malthouse : Also concerned about what ICANN staff knew when.
13:17:28 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Could the US government designate .ORG as some kind of critical national infrastructure and take it out of ICANN's remit? :)
13:17:33 From Jay Sulzberger : No we must fight the war, the real war.
13:17:41 From Jacob Malthouse : The whole RA amendment becomes a lot more consequential.
13:17:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Star Trek and Douglas Adams references always make me smile @John...
13:17:48 From Jacob Malthouse : in light of the sale
13:18:15 From Jay Sulzberger : ICANN was never tasked to destroy a Free and Open Internet.
13:18:20 From Jacob Malthouse : ALAC could endorse the Mozilla questions
13:18:34 From Jacob Malthouse : Web Foundation has also come out in support of the SaveDotOrg letter
13:18:39 From Jonathan Zuck : Exactly Judith and perhaps add two or something.
13:18:47 From Jay Sulzberger : I am against for profit. I do not think they are necessarily evil. Not at all.
13:19:33 From Jay Sulzberger : I meant to say I am NOT against for profit organizations. Oi.
13:19:41 From Roberto : +1 Alan, play on both sides
13:20:02 From Jay Sulzberger : Again, I do not think for profit organizations are bad.
13:20:13 From Jay Sulzberger : They are often wonderful.
13:20:20 From Roberto : There’s nothing wrong in having a plan A and a plan B
13:20:36 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Yep but this definitely needs a Plan C
13:20:54 From Marita Moll : Yes, my point as well. At some point, look for a quid pro quo if the deal is going through
13:21:01 From Jay Sulzberger : But for certain human, also personal, purposes a for profit organization is not the right vehicle.
13:21:20 From Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC) : great great call
13:22:03 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The one thing condition that should be imposed is a restriction on heavily discounted registrations. They are utterly toxic for TLDs.
13:22:18 From Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC) : one of the best icann call in a long time
13:22:44 From Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC) : calls
13:22:54 From Jay Sulzberger : To repeat: By new law new custom, a for profit organization cannot be constrained by mere contract, under a new and in some places dominant, ideology, which
13:23:08 From christopher wilkinson : I think we need to see the 2002 PIR contract.
13:23:17 From David Mackey : +1 @Evan
13:23:24 From Hadia : Fighting for the public interest is certainly of interest and importance to end users
13:23:27 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : +1 @Evan
13:23:34 From Sarah Kiden : +1
13:23:39 From Roberto : +1
13:23:40 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Think that I ran across it about a week ago when I was reading the registry agreements.
13:23:42 From Jacob Malthouse : Thanks Evan
13:23:43 From christopher wilkinson : Leaving the call. Thankyou.
13:23:45 From Zak Muscovitch : +1
13:23:47 From Holly Raiche : @ AArvi - has this call helped what the Board would say?
13:23:49 From Jacob Malthouse : Registries can add to their PICs whenever.
13:23:53 From Michel TCHONANG : why not
13:23:57 From Jacob Malthouse : They can also amend their RAs whenever
13:24:04 From Jay Sulzberger : ideology states that it is a high duty to run a for profit organization to go right up to, and really, often beyond, the rules in order to benefit the Owners.
13:24:27 From Jacob Malthouse : Section 2.19 of the RA is also worth reviewing
13:24:44 From Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong (HOUSE OF AFRICA) : what are the consequences of transfer of PIR-ISOC to another entity-company for end users (price...)
13:25:07 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : higher prices, eventually.
13:25:28 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : lower registrations as registrants drift to ccTLDs.
13:25:55 From Jay Sulzberger : What to ask ICANN, immediately, no Revolutionary Council^W^WConstitutional Convention required: Please delay for at leats one year any moves by ISOC to push for change in the founda
13:25:56 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : golden handcuffs effect as some registrants can't afford to rebrand
13:26:05 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Any delegation needs to consider RFC 1591
13:26:07 From Michel TCHONANG : In my opinion, everything depends on the ISOC seller's conditionalities
13:26:35 From Richard Barnes : Section 7.5
13:26:39 From Jay Sulzberger : tion of the present not for profit Public Intererst Registry.
13:27:01 From León Sánchez : I need to leave the call. my apologies for not staying till the end
13:27:12 From León Sánchez : will listen to the final part of the recording
13:27:15 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Logically the registry no longer serves the public interest but rather commercial interests.
13:27:22 From Claudia Ruiz : Thank you, Leon
13:27:26 From Jay Sulzberger : Perhaps we the Plain People of the Internet can organize a militia^Wan army to fight for a free and open Internet for Everybody.
13:27:27 From Richard Barnes : The contract is with PIR, which continues to exist. Section 7.5 is triggered only by the change of control.
13:27:30 From Alan Greenberg (ALAC) : I can address Olivier
13:27:30 From Brandt Dainow (ISOC Ireland) : @Michel - ISOC has not imposed any conditions for conduct on Ethos Capital. ISOC CEO Sullivan said he didn't think they would be enforceable, and that was now a matter for ICANN
13:27:32 From León Sánchez : thanks everyone for your input. Most useful
13:27:52 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : Think it would require a new contract and a possible leagal challenge
13:28:13 From Lucien Castex : interesting indeed from a legal standpoint
13:28:17 From Jay Sulzberger : So Andrew Sullivan agrees that ICANN is the supervisor of ISOC in the instant matter.
13:28:20 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : Q : we gave ALAC’s previous advice re. org contract earlier this year but without the knowledge that ISOC will sell PIR - are there parts of that previous statement that we want to alter or would that be a waste of time/ship has sailed?
13:28:26 From Michel TCHONANG : Thank Brandt
13:28:40 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : The ICANN board should be looking to their parachiutes if this topic gains momentum with the public.
13:28:40 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : .ORG Registry Agreement: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-pdf-30jun19-en.pdf
13:29:37 From Jay Sulzberger : Will Zoom make available a video/audio of this telemeeting, and also a transcript of the scrolling chat?
13:29:50 From Evan Leibovitch : In the ISOC policy chat I have made a proposal to let the PIR deal go through, but that 7% of the sale proceeds (about $80M)be earmarked towards creation of a new community based (nonprofit) TLD. Traction so far has been mixed.
13:29:54 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : It stores it as a file on the PC
13:30:03 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : Yes @Jay - the recording and the transcript will be made available
13:30:06 From Jay Sulzberger : Thanks, ICANN/Zoom folk!
13:30:16 From Jay Sulzberger : Dear Olibvier, thanks!
13:30:23 From Jay Sulzberger : Olivier of course.
13:30:27 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : Zoom is actually paid for by ICANN. Not free.
13:30:52 From Jay Sulzberger : I will contribute if it is free software.
13:30:59 From Jay Sulzberger : Again, thanks!
13:31:25 From Jay Sulzberger : TO THE ORPHANS COURT!
13:31:34 From Jay Sulzberger : Sorry for yelling.
13:32:03 From Evan Leibovitch : You're not sorry ; )
13:32:48 From Jay Sulzberger : ;) I am old slow. Also a traditional old fashioned Internet user. It is natural ;)
13:33:06 From Jay Sulzberger : Thanks, ICANN folk!
13:33:19 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : @Jay it might have been interesting to see Google buy it and run it as a non-profit/public interest org.
13:33:26 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thanks everyone.. useful discussion... Bye for now look forward to the drafting of something
13:33:53 From Roberto : Fine with me, Jonathan
13:33:55 From Lutz Donnerhacke : @Jay Please feel free to be thankful for somebody (rich enough) to pay for software. Most of them starts as free software and need to do some work for a living. So if someone else does pay the developers, be thankful, that you can use it for free. (in most cases)
13:34:17 From Jay Sulzberger : J. Zuck thanks for kind mention of my general objections, different in kind from any particular fears about particular harms.
13:34:21 From Jacob Malthouse : If PIR triggered notice to ICANN on Nov 13 then Dec 13 is the 30 day deadline, not sure if that has been triggered.
13:34:35 From Jay Sulzberger : Thank you all!
13:34:36 From Sarah Kiden : Very useful call. Thank you!
13:34:37 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Excellent discussion - great ideas for moving forward. Congratulations Jonathan keeping cats herded!!
13:34:41 From Lutz Donnerhacke : Thanks Jacob for the timely reminder
13:34:46 From Michel TCHONANG : Thank and good bye all
13:34:48 From Sebastien Bachollet : I don’t like the way you pick writers
13:34:48 From Jacob Malthouse : Thanks for a great call
13:34:49 From Jacob Malthouse : Well run
13:34:49 From Hadia : thank you all bye for now
13:34:51 From David Mackey : Thanks Jonathan for managing this call :-)
13:34:53 From Evin Erdoğdu : Thank you all!
13:35:30 From Judith Hellerstein : OCL the RTT will be available immediately
13:35:35 From Claudia Ruiz : Recording will be posted here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=123797527
13:35:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye then...
13:36:01 From Evan Leibovitch : Bye all
13:36:07 From LILIAN IVETTE DE LUQUE : bye
13:36:08 From Bukola Oronti : thank you all
13:36:09 From Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC) : awesome
13:36:09 From Dev Anand Teelucksingh : take care all
13:36:10 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : That was a masterpiece in diplomacy. :)
13:36:11 From Evan Leibovitch : Bye all
13:36:12 From Tom Mackenzie : Only came in at the end but liked the way it seemed to be open to all
13:36:19 From Roberto : Captioning will be on your computer after the call
13:36:21 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com : later all
13:37:12 From hanan khatib : thank you all
