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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed Nov 20 14:50:21 UTC 2019


I also think we should consider that idea.

Marita

On 11/20/2019 9:21 AM, John Laprise wrote:
> Oh I like that idea!
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 6:33 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:evan at telly.org>> wrote:
>
>                     On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 09:16, Hadia Abdelsalam
>                     Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg
>                     <mailto: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
>                     ofTLDsharks, 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 afterthe 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 <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.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20191120/234c85bf/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 registration-issues-wg mailing list