[CPWG] PIR/Ethos

Tue Jan 21 03:27:26 UTC 2020

Isn't it a self-fulfilling prophecy that if we believe that we don't have
any realistic prospect of stopping the bid, and therefore don't oppose it,
that we will then in effect be facilitating the sale of PIR to Ethos
Capital, whether or not we believe that is the right outcome?

If we believe, as self-appointed stewards of the interests of end-users,
that the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital is not in the interests of end-users,
then shouldn't we voice objection to the sale - whether or not the Board
decides to take our advice?

Our role here is to speak on behalf of one of the most important
stakeholders to this decision.  ICANN purports to have a bottom-up,
multistakeholder model.  The Board should therefore pay attention to our
advice.  If they don't, then that will be a failure of the Board to fulfill
their responsibility, not of us to fulfill ours.

We should provide the best advice possible to the Board that best reflects
the interests of our end-user constituents and the mission of ICANN to
serve the public benefit.  Otherwise, what is our role here?

Nat Cohen

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:14 PM Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
wrote:

> Maybe first, we should check on a couple of things.  According to the NYT
> story in early January, ICANN asked for more information - has that been
> provided (can we find out) and what information was provided.  If it has
> been provided, at what stage will ICANN make a decision on approval - or
> not.
>
> That information may help in working through whether ALAC (or others) has
> a hope of stopping the transaction - or not.  It will certainly help in our
> response if we know what information was requested (and provided) - and
> when a decision can be expected.
>
> At this stage, there appears to be a bit of time - a decision seems not to
> have been made yet.  So we do have a tiny bit of time to ask
> - whether we have any realistic prospect in stopping the bid (along with
> the many others who have  expressed concern about the proposal)
> - whether it is more realistic to impose public interest requirements
> through contract provisions (and I agree with Jonathan and Marita - this
> seems to be what is most likely to be achieved)
> - whether we  seek to have a public interest Board member (this is
> generally not supported - corporate governance rules means ALL Board
> members must act in the best interests of the company)
>
> Holly
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com> wrote:
>
> My view is that the consensus, though not full, seems to suggest that we
> try to stop the sale rather than merely impose contract provisions on the
> new entity.
>
> Nat Cohen
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:45 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed Judith. The consensus, though not full, seems to suggest we impose
>> contract provisions on the new entity rather than really trying to stop the
>> sale.
>>
>> Jonathan Zuck
>> Executive Director
>> Innovators Network Foundation
>> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Judith Hellerstein <
>> judith at jhellerstein.com>
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2020 4:31:02 PM
>> *To:* cpwg at icann.org <cpwg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
>>
>>
>> HI Marita,
>>
>> I would not say that the community is against the sale. There are many
>> people who do not think we can do anything to stop the sale so the best
>> thing we can do is to get Ethos to add certain requirements
>>
>> Judith
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________
>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
>> Hellerstein & Associates
>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
>> Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein
>> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
>> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com   Website: www.jhellerstein.com
>> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
>>
>>
>> On 1/20/2020 7:24 PM, Marita Moll wrote:
>>
>> We have been talking about this for quite awhile. Is there a statement
>> under preparation at the moment to come from At Large? I don't see anything
>> there.
>>
>> I am afraid that our non-response might be viewed as a response in favour
>> of the sale. That isn't the impression I have -- I don't think our
>> community is in favour of the sale.
>>
>> Marita
>> On 1/20/2020 3:49 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>>
>> Alan raises some very good points for discussion.  Could we put his
>> letter on the wiki for PIR please
>>
>> Holly
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2020, at 10:07 AM, sivasubramanian muthusamy <
>> 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Alan,
>>
>> (With apologies for commenting on your letter that is directed at the
>> Board, some comments inline)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board
>> of Directors today.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> >To: ICANN Board
>> >
>> >This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect
>> >a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a
>> >few thoughts.
>> >
>> >With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was
>> >starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and
>> >bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of
>> >the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans)
>> >involved, the odor has started to rise again.
>> >
>> >When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public
>> >relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a
>> >number of possible very unfortunate consequences.
>> >
>> >1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove
>> >pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos
>> >are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases
>> >could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10
>> >years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and
>> >this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16
>> >years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales
>> >sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that
>> >the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too
>> >late to change this, regardless of owner.
>> >
>> >2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of
>> >the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under
>> >.org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real
>> >life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them
>> >are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you
>> >see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I
>> >registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my
>> >local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for
>> >ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.
>> >
>> >That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that
>> >has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure
>> >of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org
>> >into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to
>> >.com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts.
>>
>>
>>
>> >If it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very
>> >targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot!
>>
>>
>> It might be counter productive to scale .ORG into a more generic TLD, but
>> then .ORG might become like any other generic TLD. There may be greater
>> value in actually "preserving the nature of .ORG" limiting the number of
>> .ORG registrations to authentic organizations (individuals engaged in ORG
>> like pursuits)
>>
>> If newPIR pursues this path of retaining and perhaps streamlining .ORG's
>> unique position, it would be fair to let go of the concerns about price
>> increases, in compensation for the revenue foregone by NOT adopting the
>> path of making .ORG into a more generic TLD.  This is just a thought,
>> shared in context.
>>
>>
>> And
>> >along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The
>> >lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its
>> >annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore.
>> >
>> >Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those
>> >assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, far more
>> >important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the
>> >shots and those other entities who may have control have made no
>> >such assurances at all.
>>
>>
>> Not sure if Ethos would have designed the pattern of ownership in a
>> manner that would so easily concede control.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not.
>> >The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But
>> >if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it
>> >include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of
>> >the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a
>> >true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be
>> >difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be
>> >honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the
>> >intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for
>> >having their contract revoked.
>>
>>
>> That would be fair for ICANN to stipulate.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Alan Greenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://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 listCPWG at icann.orghttps://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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200120/95c58e0a/attachment-0001.html>