[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Brainstorming

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sun Nov 24 15:56:56 UTC 2019


I agree with all the points that Roberto has made, that there is a 
serious breach of trust issue here. It is certainly up to ISOC chapters 
to hold the ISOC board to account. But is there any role for AtLarge at 
this level? Join the protest, sign on to the petition? I am not sure 
that is where we fit in -- but I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

What can we ask of ICANN though? We certainly should ask if there were 
any indications of this sale before or during the discussion re: 
removing price caps is one thing we can ask. That needs to be clarified. 
It feels a bit like a sucker punch......... did it come straight out of 
the blue, or did some people see it coming? If anyone did, what 
obligations did those people have to inform the community? According to 
a just established PIR website re: this sale 
(https://www.keypointsabout.org/), there were no activities that led to 
the sale before the lifting of the price caps. They maintain there was 
no connection.

The bigger question is what can be done about it, or, more specifically, 
what should we be asking to be done about it? We could just indicate our 
displeasure, but that isn't helpful in the end.

What are the possible remedies.  Can ICANN revisit/adjust the price cap 
lift without facing a major lawsuit? Can ICANN demand that ISOC/PIR 
reopen the bidding so a non-profit organization could be chosen as new 
owner? Can ICANN place restrictions on the .org contracts (don't ask me 
what that could consist of) that would mitigate the possibility for 
exploitation at the hands of a venture capital firm?

I have been reading tons and tons of e-mails on this issue, but I don't 
see a lot of answers to the question about what actual/possible remedies 
might be available here.

Marita

On 11/24/2019 1:23 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> Sebastian
>
> I see the reason for ISOC's selling as an issue relating to their 
> _breach of trust_ and the subsequent loss of everyone's trust and 
> confidence in ISOC and the ISOC principles PIR were tasked to uphold 
> on behalf of "non-commercial, NGO and nonprofit community"  As 
> end-users I see Trust as the basis on which to argue further issues
>
> My 2c
>
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:33 PM Sebastien Bachollet 
> <sebicann at bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann at bachollet.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Roberto
>     After reading your brainstorming paper, I can confirm my position.
>     We have to question not who is the buyer but why and how the
>     seller is selling .org?
>     SeB
>
>     Sébastien Bachollet
>     Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
>>     Le 23 nov. 2019 à 23:45, Roberto Gaetano
>>     <mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>>     
>>     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 <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.
>     _______________________________________________
>     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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191124/1dddadf8/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