[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: Re: [registration-issues-wg] 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/cpwg/attachments/20191120/234c85bf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list