[ncdnhc-discuss] Important: Board action on .org divestiture

[Milton Mueller]

Alejandro:

>>> "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <

> the Board fully considered the DNSO statement. 

You don't seem to get it. The statement IS the policy,
under ICANN's procedures. It is not something you "consider"
like some random email from someone. The policy evolved 
right under your eyes for months (assuming the Board was
paying attention, which it probably was not) and there
were plenty of opportunities (in public comment periods
or through constituency actions) to direct criticisms or
raise questions. In his email to me, Amadeu said that

"As a Board, we often express the frustration caused by the 
lack of recommendations coming form the SOs. As a Board, we 
should probably pay more attention to them when they come, 
and when they relfect serious and widespread work and 
commitment, no matter how incomplete or even wrong we 
could consider them in the exercise of our responsibilities."

Even that is too weak a statement, if ICANN's bylaws are 
to be taken seriously. You shouldn't "pay more attention to 
them," you should consider them to be guidelines that you
are either bound to follow, or bound to return to the DNSO
for revision, with a written statement of explanation. Don't
take my word for it - read your own bylaws.

> The intention is to leave open those options that will
> benefit .org registrants most, by providing the security 
> that the registry will be properly operated in a professional 
> manner. [snip] .org is already large (3M) and has to be
> run at a high level of efficacy and efficiency.

There is no logical relationship between these issues.
The policy called for .org to be divested to an organization
broadly representative of noncommercial stakeholders. 
In assessing bids from such organizations, the Board
can easily apply the same standards of "efficacy and
efficiency" that it would apply to a commercial bidder.
Indeed, the noncommercial organization can easily
outsource the arrangement to a commercial registry.

> There is also a perception that optimizing the operation 
> may be at odds with trying to obtain a surplus to apply to 
> "good causes". This may in the long run be opposed to plain, 
> good operation in the service of the users.

This is a valid concern, however, the policy did not REQUIRE
any applicant to obtain a surplus, it simply said that it was
possible to do so. Here again, an alert ICANN Board, in
evaluating specific applications, could easily distinguish between
applicants who are trying to turn .org into a foundation to
save the world and a .org that minimizes its surplus or uses 
it in appropriate ways, such as supporting NCDNHC dues in
the DNSO.

In general, it seems that the Board has confused the
policy stage with the selection stage. All of the concerns 
you express could be considered in evaluating specific
applicants, while still adhering completely to the DNSO policy.

All you have accomplished is to knock out the requirement
that the .org applicants be responsive to and representative
of the noncommercial community!

This is not only a slap in the face to the community you 
supposedly represent, it will make the comparison of applicants 
much more arbitrary, because you now have no clear criterion 
for choosing among applicants. If you are confronted with a 
wholly commercial registry whose only interest is in maximizing 
registrations in .org, and a noncommercial one focused on 
differentiating .org, which one will you choose? On what basis?

> The DNSO's insistence on "marketing" was severely 
> attacked by Prof. Abril,as it had already been questioned 
> in previous fora. 

No, it wasn't "attacked," according to a message from
Abril to me Amadeu simply expressed his inability to understand
what was being proposed and why "marketing" was considered
important. This is a simple misunderstanding that a 
ten-minute conversation could clear up. The policy simply says
that .org should be marketed to differentiate its
identity. It should not be a clone of .com. I think Amadeu failed to
understand this, and perhaps the wording could have been
elaborated to explain it better. But I know of no one who disagrees
with that objective. Can you provide any evidence that someone 
does?

> I disagree with your statement that the DNSO document was 
> non-controversial. 

It was vetted by all the constituencies over a 6-month period.
It passed the NC unanimously. There was no significant 
expression of opposition in the public comments. The B&C
representatives who preferred a restricted approach COULD have
voted against it, but chose not to because they recognized the
policy we defined as a consensus point, and did not feel the
stakes warranted any change. That's as close to non-controversy
as domain name issues can ever get. You should respect that.

> There are all kinds of possible conflict of interest in this field. 
> Surely YJ Park has already finally disclosed her long story of 
> conflict here;

I think YJ has answered this argument quite effectively. 
The so-called "conflict of interest" you cite is an inherent part 
of the "industry self-regulation" that constitutes the DNSO. 
Your pretense that this is a problem in her case, but not in
the case of Ken Stubbs, ISOC members on the Board (which
may be part of an applicant), Roger Cochetti, the ccTLDs,
etc. is an unfair double standard. 

For the record, however, I am not now and will not be 
associated with any applicant, even though I have been
asked to be, because I think it would be inappropriate
for the person who chaired the task force to then 
work for a particular applicant. 

> this constituency (and you, Milton, in particular) allowed 
> her for months to be working for a group that is vying for 
> a bid on .org. Whether there be profit or none involved, 
> the fact of shaping policy on .org in the Names Council and 
> building a well-subsidized effort to bid, appear
> clearly as a distortion of process. 

I am laughing at this statement. What do you mean I
"allowed" YJ to do something? Am I her father? 

Anyway, your facts are wrong. YJ's ORG alliance surfaced
only AFTER the policy was formed. YJ was not on the Task 
Force. On the other hand, Mike Roberts Dot org alliance
was formed much earlier, and he played a significant role in
shaping the business constituency's position. Both Robert's 
and YJ Park's actions were fair and aboveboard, in my opinion,
within the context of ICANN's "industry self-regulation
scheme" in which such overlapping of interests are built into
the system. Roberts and Parks are only two of the five or
six potential bidders who surfaced during the process. All
of them are connected to the DNSO and the Names 
Council either directly or indirectly. Why do you single
out YJ? 

To what extent is your jihad against a .org that represents
noncommercial interest a reaction against a particular bidder
that you don't like? Would you care to expound on the ethics
of that?