[ALAC] [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org

Mon Jan 6 15:16:12 UTC 2020

Dear friends. I have worked with PIR back in time for 3 years and totally agree with Roberto’s rationale.  Thanks Roberto for these meaningful thoughts!
Kisses to all

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.

From: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 6, 2020 at 07:26
To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com>
Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC Members <ALAC-members at icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>, ALT-Plus <alt-plus at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] [CPWG] PIR and Dot Org

Excellent points Roberto.
Your experience on the PIR Board is invaluable in this regard. and your recommendations noted.

Maureen

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:02 AM Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Maureen.
I have been thinking further about this, and came to the conclusion that our proposal would be not to have a representative on the Stewardship Council but on the PIR Board.
Here is the rationale for that.
The Stewardship Council will play the role that was previously of the Advisory Council. Its purpose was to get multiple voices from different part of the user community, and in particular the NGOs, ensuring diversity of opinions. This body was advisory to a Board that had already built-in the fundamental non-profit, user-community DNA, because it was selected by ISOC.
With the changed situation, we can safely assume that the new PIR Board will be selected by Ethos to take care of the interests of the investors, and there is no guarantee that the public interest is being taken care of.
This will be a good option for Ethos as well, because it would show in a concrete way the commitment to the public interest beyond mere verbal expression of intents. On the other hand, Ethos and the investors would keep a solid majority that will ensure that their interests are protected.
We should remember that while the Advisory Council was surely empowered to provide advice, and was surely listened to, a Director would have access to more information and definitively better opportunities to discuss different ideas and approaches with his/her fellow Directors, therefore presenting the point of view of the public interest more effectively.
In short, this person wold play a role that is similar to the one that León plays in ICANN: committed to the fiduciary responsibility to the corporation but able to be a strong voice to the discussion.
I think that we should not be shy, all in remaining reasonable with our proposals. I believe that this one is a win-win, bringing the voice of the user community in PIR and being a good opportunity for Ethos to show a commitment while still remaining in control of PIR.
Cheers,
Roberto

PS: As I am not subscribed to the different mailing lists, please forward this if you see fit

On 06.01.2020, at 01:40, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>> wrote:

 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200105_hilyard_has_a_historic_chance_to_activate_icann_at_large/

Well that is certainly forcing our hand to take some action. But with arrows flying in all sorts of directions it has been difficult to know which one to follow, and I note there has been a break in the conversations on this topic.

Interesting and very timely that Roberto raised the .org issue again in an earlier email today. I started a response until JZ reminded us that the thread was about .com

I agree with Roberto's approach  - that we should focus on our role as the voice of At-Large end-users and offer some creative advice on how we might influence the behaviour of PIR and any future decisions they make that will impact on .org end-users. PIR/Ethos already presented a webinar and said all the right things.. but how can we be assured that they will stick to what they said that they would do in the future? Who will monitor this on behalf of ordinary end-users? Who will be represented on the Stewardship Council?

At the same time we may also need to advise the ICANN Board about how they might deal with the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract - especially Roberto's recommendation of some commitment from ICANN that ethical behaviour towards .org end-users will be built into it.

We are aware that the Board is looking into every legal issue relating to how they can deal with matters that are being raised by letters that are flowing their way. We don't need to add more of the same.

While i think it might be seen to be a simplistic approach, I believe that we should stick to what our job is and focus on advice to the Board and to PIR- but lets try to be creative about how we advise them, looking at the impacts on end-users from all perspectives.

My 2c
M

·
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20200106/d49f10e2/attachment.html>