<div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>Please see my comments below (inline)...<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 1:52 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">I have purposefully refrained from commenting on the issue until now but wish to be on record for wholeheartedly supporting and endorsing George's comments and view on the matter. </div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Dear Salanieta,</div><div dir="auto">It's always normal & acceptable to share a position ; and yes, i understand the need of a lawyer <br></div><div>to defend, even, a blatant culprit. Is it why the devil exists... :-/ <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...for George's position : he sees no *ethical problem* with the sale of the 'Public Interest Registry'. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's a problem when you consider the powerful speeches he always deliver. His view seems to be <br></div><div dir="auto">biaised and more now that he is in campaign to be elected as a Trustee (where there is a broken <br></div><div dir="auto">'Trust Anchor' issue still not addressed). Maybe not him, but it's worth imagining that someones <br></div><div dir="auto">would decide to run to the InternetSociety.ORG BoT election ; only to have the ability to be near to <br></div><div dir="auto">the announced $1.135 B...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>...please see the full list of issues below.<br>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">~°~</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">...issues
at hands (as identified by participants in various PIR Sale </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">discussions
: </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•—</span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
The (Conflicting) Ethical Aspects of the Public Interest
Registry (PIR) </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">Sale's
Decision </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
The PIR Sale Decision-making process </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
InternetSociety.ORG members's active participation</span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
The (Conflicting) Break of a Trust Anchor </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
The (conflicting) Future of the PIR (or Let's go for a Free
commons PIR - </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">cPIR
?) </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
(Conflicting) Rejuvenation Process for a better Future of the </span><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">InternetSociety.ORG </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•
(Conflicting) Impacts in the Future of the Internet (FotI)</span><br style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:13.696px">•—</span></div>
<div dir="auto">~°~</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">OK, if there is a stakeholder which decides to hide all what it's possible (not just allowed) to hide...</div><div dir="auto">then the above latin phrase seems to not be reasonably applicable.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To be clear here : i'm following multiple threads around this same topic, in various mailing lists, and i'm <br></div><div dir="auto">not sure to have heard (read) that someone (opponent) have decided to not listen to EC's arguments... <br></div>Even when someones know that EC has already shared some acceptable and some bad promises and <br></div><div dir="auto">that there is a huge doubt that they have anything new to add...{someones have already send their <br></div><div dir="auto">questions and for me i will probably read the record, after the call. GOD Will!}<br><br>The core difficulty with George's argumentation is that it *seems* (i may be wrong though) to assume that : <br><br>•—<br>• the opponents don't want to hear EC's arguments ;<br>• the position of the opponents is not mature enough ;<br>• the opposition is 'only' justifies by some emotional consequences of the distance between InternetSociety.ORG's <br></div><div dir="auto">members and Trustees...suppress that distance and you have your fix...<br>• the opponents don't really understand what's at stake for the Future of the Internet(Society.ORG) | FotI ;<br>• they only focus on the FotP (Future of the PIR)<br>• ...<br>•—<br><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In facts, his strategy is a bit different to the 'dealers' strategy ; but they share something. Where George's <br></div><div dir="auto">messages are always starting by acknowledging various obvious issues related to the troubling <br></div><div dir="auto">relationship between InternetSociety.ORG's management/BoT and the members/chapters before <br></div><div dir="auto">concluding that the PIR sale was the best way forward (if he was a BoT member, he would have <br></div><div dir="auto">aproved it); the 'dealers' reactions and strongest proponent's argumentations are denying straightly</div><div dir="auto">always those of the opponents. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">From within ICANN, the global community has to review the PDP and content in terms of making it mandatory to require Express written consent from all the supporting organisations, advisory committees that the re-selling of what was initially conferred as a "public interest commodity" is not commercially exploited to the extent where it harms global public interest.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks to this !</div><div>...your argument above is mostly in opposition to the position (in topic) of our dear George :-)<br></div><div>Just saying !</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Happy & Blessed monday !</div><div><br></div><div>Shalom,</div><div>--sb.</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sala</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 4:29 am George Sadowsky, <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div>The announcement of this Webinar is a very promising development.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps the most prevalent constant in this debate has been secrecy, or lack of information, subjecting the discussion to an enormous stream of hypotheticals. Ethos has been the most secretive to date, and now it appears that next week they are planning to discuss their plans for .org. I'm not sure what they will say, but I think that they deserve an equal opportunity to be heard. What they say will help to inform the discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Sometimes in the heat of the moment we get wrapped up in an issue which, while important, is dwarfed by others that are forgotten in the battle. This may be one of those moments.</div><div><br></div><div>Yesterday ISOC had a 90 minute webinar in which staff discussed their programmatic plans for the future. I was very impressed with the presenters, with the programmatic thrusts being planned and executed, and with their willingness to be open with regard to how the plan was formed -- in this case, with significant input from our community. When being involved in the PIR debate, it's easy to forget that ISOC is an institution whose goals we share, that has done an enormous amount of good work in the past, and who seems dedicated to continue their efforts unabated into the future. ISOC is an enormous asset to the open Internet and to the Internet community.</div><div><br></div><div>Like some of you, I felt a disappointment in the way in which the PIR decision was handled, and assuming at portfolio diversification was the goal, I believe that it could have been better achieved in a different manner. But I would much rather accept and live with that disappointment and see ISOC succeed, than see ISOC robbed of any opportunity to continue its work effectively due to the lack of closure of the PIR debate.</div><div><br></div><div>No matter how the PIR issue is resolved, we must come out of this process, and soon, with an ISOC that is whole, able to do its work and able to command the voluntary cooperation and affiliation and enthusiasm of a strong membership. </div><div><br></div><div>The eventual disposition of PIR should not be our primary concern, rather it should be ensuring that the goals of ISOC that we share with them should be furthered in the most effective manner possible. Let's remember that in the course of this discussion and not make it more difficult to achieve the real goal.</div><div><br></div><div>George</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><div><span>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</span><br><span>George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968</span><span>.4325</span></div><div><span>8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933</span><br><span>Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky </span><br><span><a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a> </span><br></div><div><span><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>[...]
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</div></div>