[GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: Re: [registration-issues-wg] Fwd: ISOC sells PIR

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Wed Nov 20 15:28:08 UTC 2019


That's what I mean, re-delegating it from PIR to a real nonprofit.

I will check, and maybe others can help.... but I believe that there is a
clause in the registry agreement that allows ICANN to terminate if there is
a major change in the status of the owner (in this case, PIR changing from
nonprofit to for-profit).

Of course ICANN has rarely if ever acted on this capability, but I believe
it exists.

___________________
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto
@evanleibovitch/@el56

On Wed., Nov. 20, 2019, 9:26 a.m. Eduardo Diaz, <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Evan:
>
> How .ORG can be re-delegated if it does not belong to ISOC but PIR?
>
> -ed
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:34 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Or there could be totally new advice asking ICANN to re-delegate .ORG
>> back to a nonprofit.
>> It has that authority.
>>
>>
>> https://gizmodo.com/private-equity-ghouls-buy-non-profit-that-handles-org-1839860118
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 17:25, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the advice we issued on the change in contractual terms. It's within
>>> ALAC's remit to issue advice on anything and this is exactly the kind of
>>> situation that allows us to nimbly address a situation. George Kirikos
>>> mentioned the s contingency in the list but by that time I'm pretty sure he
>>> had established himself as shrill and was in the process of being report to
>>> the ombudsman. We can ask the board to examine options here because we
>>> issued advice in good faith and expectation of ISOC being a good Steward of
>>> .org. selling it off to a VC firm was not something I considered likely and
>>> had I, would not have advocated in the way I did.
>>>
>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>
>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 1:22 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On what issue John?
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>>>>
>>>> On November 19, 2019 1:31:18 PM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Evan. This is an astounding sort sighted deal by ISOC
>>>>> which essentially squandered the trust of it's membership for financial
>>>>> gain. Trust is the most precious commodity of any non profit and hard to
>>>>> regain once lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, ALAC and CPWG should urgently amend our advice on the
>>>>> contractual issue to reflect new situation. I am no longer in support on
>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>>
>>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>> Show quoted text
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>>>
>>>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 3:58 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 09:16, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <
>>>>>> Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would certainly assume that ISOC got a very decent amount of money
>>>>>>> from Ethos for the deal to go forward. At this point I would assume that
>>>>>>> ISOC has insured its way forward. However, what is still to be seen is the
>>>>>>> effect on the .org prices, hopefully going forward they would have special
>>>>>>> prices for non profits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two factors come to mind in considering the long term effects of the
>>>>>> sale, over and above the financial-stability component of which we are all
>>>>>> aware. Consider:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The substance:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PIR was more than just an ISOC asset. The Internet Society was
>>>>>> custodian of the only global top-level domain that was, by nature
>>>>>> and its very name, acting in the public interest. In a sea of TLD
>>>>>> sharks, dot-org could be seen as a body that brought both financial
>>>>>> stability to ISOC and social responsibility among the registries. Its
>>>>>> size and nonprofit status would keep costs down and corporate
>>>>>> direction serving a social mission. Its competitive presence could
>>>>>> tamp down the excesses of the industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now that's gone. More important than the divestment of PIR is its
>>>>>> change from nonprofit to Just Another Shareholder-Value-Maximizing part of
>>>>>> the domain ecosystem, its uniqueness vanished in an instant. In the
>>>>>> aim of maximizing its own revenue ISOC has eliminated from the the
>>>>>> Internet the only publicly-accessible nonprofit gTLD. Gone is this substantial
>>>>>> voice of public-interest sanity within the registry community,
>>>>>> replaced by an entity barely more ethically motivated than Donuts. As a
>>>>>> dot-org "owner", this hurts personally. But as someone trying to
>>>>>> advance Internet domains as a component of progress, this hurts on a global
>>>>>> scale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stewardship of a socially-motivated registry was one of ISOC's core
>>>>>> global functions IMO. With that gone, so is part of ISOC's value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The process:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The path that led to the divestment of PIR, both before and after
>>>>>> the decision had been made, has laid bare a core ISOC culture that
>>>>>> is the opposite of the openness it asks the world to embrace. At a
>>>>>> level of fiscal responsibility, ISOC's action was exactly what one would
>>>>>> expect any for-profit entity to do. Maximize benefit through a secretive
>>>>>> process that catches everyone unaware -- not just of the transaction but of
>>>>>> the urgency to do it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except ISOC is not a for-profit entity. It displays itself to the
>>>>>> world as a community body that encourages involvement at a personal,
>>>>>> regional, institutional or national scale. It has carefully crafted and
>>>>>> evolved a Chapters Advisory Council explicitly designed to provide
>>>>>> management with the view from the grassroots, alongside a parallel Council
>>>>>> for corporate participants. This was combined with global virtual
>>>>>> events such as InterCommunity that were created to give ISOC a global
>>>>>> awareness of what was needed to promote a more-open Internet. And it has
>>>>>> always had an individual-membership program, which isn't really talked
>>>>>> about these days as these "members" have neither any costs nor any benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of these mechanisms were employed, none of these entities
>>>>>> consulted, before or after the decision, even under NDA. The community
>>>>>> wasn't even aware that PIR was being shopped around. As a result, there was
>>>>>> no open solicitation, no publicly-competitive process, no opportunity for
>>>>>> any other firm to make a counter-offer that might keep PIR nonprofit. We'll
>>>>>> never know. Or maybe it wasn't shopped around and someone just made ISOC an
>>>>>> offer it couldn't refuse. But ISOC isn't Jack Woltz. The community
>>>>>> had no idea of any sense of urgency to sell PIR, and certainly was never
>>>>>> consulted about the ethics or consequences of turning PIR for-profit.
>>>>>> The common nonprofit practice of having major decisions ratified by
>>>>>> stakeholders at an AGM is also nowhere in sight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now we know the reality of ISOC's corporate culture. Promote
>>>>>> openness and consultation when convenient, but be opaque when it matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if ISOC considers me a stakeholder, or for that matter
>>>>>> anyone else on this list, any Chapter or any Organization Member. In fact
>>>>>> right now I have no idea who ISOC considers its stakeholders to be; it
>>>>>> certainly didn't consult any before the fact or ask for any blessings
>>>>>> afterwards. Not even informally. So who shows up at the AGM? Just the
>>>>>> Trustees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, the deal is essentially done. ISOC clearly appears to
>>>>>> have assured its financial stability, which is certainly a Good Thing. But
>>>>>> with a crown jewel of the Internet fading away and the shallowness of its
>>>>>> commitment to openness and community exposed in the process, it is
>>>>>> legitimate to ask whether ISOC has sold more than a registry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We won't know the answer to that for a while
>>>>>> - Evan
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
>> @evanleibovitch or @el56
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-wg/attachments/20191120/93e9ef4c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
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.


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list