[CPWG] NYTimes: The .Org Mirage

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 03:46, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> Managing brand transition costs sounds a black hole that would be
> difficult to do in reality.
>

I was just thinking a fund that could offset (to a limit) defray costs for
registrants who see the cost of changing their domain.

(Not sure I see it fully as brand management. The only high-profile .org
registrant that uses its domain as its brand -- Facebook's internet.org --
is bring deprecated in favour of "Free Basics")


> What do you think about capping resale prices?
>

I haven't participated in the pricing part of the current debate because I
think it's a distraction from the more important registrant issues at hand
(such as privacy and resistance to arbitrary governmental takedown)

There are a whole bunch of anti-domaining, anti-parking and other
trust-building policies that could be brought to a re-invented nonprofit
registry. I sure don't have all those answers but there are plenty of IG
wonks who might.

Please find below my complete proposal as it was sent to the ISOC policy
list:


Hello all,


I've pulled back from the discussions as it seems, at this moment, that
everyone has made their salient points. We're now just repeating ourselves,
talking past each other, and now FUD-slinging is happening in both
directions. Positions are being entrenched and it's starting to look as if
this is only going to get resolved through court challenges and lawsuits
which both challengers and supporters are confident they'll win. At least
in my own experience, when that happens the only ones who win are the
lawyers, and for years the issue will consume the time of many people who
have better things to do.


This is especially sad when seeing that everyone involved, in their own
way, appears to be acting in good faith and wants what they think is best
for the future of ISOC, dot-org, global Internet users and indeed those not
yet connected.


To that end I propose a path that may enable everyone to save face and get
what (I hope) everyone wants. Like every negotiation, nobody gets 100% what
they came for but everyone has something that achieves their ultimate
objectives. Best of all we get to de-escalate, catch our breaths, move
forward and conserve the resources that would otherwise go to litigation.


Obviously, this is only preliminary, most details are missing and numbers
can be played with. But could this be at least a reasonable starting point?



*The proposal:*


   -

   The Ethos transaction proceeds as-is, with the current protesters and
   petition signers agreeing not to oppose it on legal or regulatory grounds
   (and in turn support this path)



   -

   Of the $1.135B that it is set to receive, ISOC earmarks 7% towards
   creation of a community-governed nonprofit organization with the primary
   objective of creating a new top-level domain for nonprofits. Of that 7%
   (approximately $80M), about $50M will be used to create, promote and
   operate the registry for a number of years, and the remainder will be used
   as a fund to support the one-time identity-change expenses of qualifying
   .org registrants who wish to move to the new TLD.

   -

   This new community nonprofit will be incorporated in a GDPR country and
   have a bylaw-entrenched commitment not to sell any assets so long as it is
   liquid. Registrants in the new TLD will be voting stakeholders, using a
   model based on what's used at CIRA or other nonprofit ccTLDs.



   -

   Neither ISOC, Ethos Capital nor any of their associated organizations
   will impede the creation of this TLD. Indeed, they will recommend to ICANN
   an expedient approval, whether by acquisition of an existing TLD or
   application in the next round.


*The intended results:*


   -

   ISOC gets the deal it wants for sustaining, stable revenue, just a
   little less than originally negotiated -- the net is still more than $1B.
   Plus ISOC is no longer in a conflict of interest when getting involved in
   DNS policy.

   -

   Nothing needs to change in the deal struck (assuming ISOC didn't agree
   to anything that would inhibit this)

   -

   Ethos Capital can do whatever it damn well pleases with .org -- all the
   new services and innovations they claim to want to do, they can knock
   themselves out

   -

   A stable TLD exists for nonprofits and others who support having a
   strong mission-driven presence among registries; those who oppose .org
   going for-profit now get to put up or shut up, and we can assist those
   choosing to move

   - A viable alternative exists should the unshackled PIR decide to do
   anything stupid regarding prices or other policies



   -

   The greater ISOC community takes the ... challenges ... presented by its
   transparency of negotiation as a learning moment, to be used to help it
   strengthen stakeholder relationships going forward. It gets to do soul
   searching that can actually affect positive change

   -

   We all work together to put out this publicity dumpster fire and let
   ISOC concentrate on the good stuff it wants to do.


- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20191206/dd141c8b/attachment-0001.html>