[CPWG] Brainstorming

[Maureen Hilyard]

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>
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>
> 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
> 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/cpwg/attachments/20191123/62ebba6a/attachment.html>