[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Brainstorming

Kaili Kan kankaili at gmail.com
Sun Nov 24 02:59:09 UTC 2019


+1           - Kaili

On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 7:41 AM David Mackey <mackey361 at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 Roberto
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 6:20 PM Roberto Gaetano <
> roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the
>> things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org -
>> other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly
>> discussed.
>>
>> I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust.
>> A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures
>> for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term
>> in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by
>> ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing
>> alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR
>> Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the
>> requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were
>> public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a
>> similar path it should be starting now.
>>
>> This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of
>> the selection of Directors who will supervise the “*Public Interest*”
>> Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was
>> trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is
>> taking over?
>>
>> I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings
>> with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical
>> decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now
>> gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure
>> that the profits are maximized.
>>
>> PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or
>> dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the
>> market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for
>> instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_similar_service_for_org.
>> PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who
>> were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR
>> has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC -
>> PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see
>> https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels.
>> It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing
>> additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR
>> for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased,
>> but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be
>> allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing”
>> according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings
>> a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?
>>
>> Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or
>> not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market
>> that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even
>> with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the
>> ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong
>> (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And
>> this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Roberto
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191124/6d746fd9/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