<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br>Here are a few responses to those who responded to my email from Tuesday:<br><br><b>George — </b><br>We are very much in agreement about the fact that the lack of transparency from both Ethos Capital and ISOC are cause for concern. I can't agree with you, though, in saying that a deal to fund ISOC's future work at the expense of the stability of the rest of civil society organizations at .ORG is a "greater good" or a "more important objective." To both your and Tapani's point, the issue at stake here is so much bigger than the "emotional benefit" of contributing registration fees to a non-profit. It's about being able to trust — and hold accountable — the entity that is responsible for the stewardship of the non commercial element of the internet. See also my response to John and Milton below re the capacity or likelihood of Ethos performing that function.<br><br><b>John —</b><br>I'm consolidating my response to your separate comments here in this thread. I can see how you, as a member of the ISOC board, might be particularly inclined to overlook the potential long-term externalities of this deal and focus on its short-term benefit for ISOC. There are dozens of letters, articles and reports setting out those concerns and potential harms. But in considering whether this transfer serves the interests of the whole .ORG community, I agree with you that we must "look at motivations and costs and benefits."<br> <br>The motivations of a well-established nonprofit organization like ISOC and those of a newly formed, untested for-profit entity like Ethos are fundamentally different. And even if we can reasonably accept Ethos' assurances that it has the public interest at heart, because its profit model depends on it, there are no guarantees that calculus would not shift in response to the intervention of governments or other private actors. Exactly how much profit would make it worth it for Ethos — or another private owner down the resale line — to hand over registrants' sensitive data, impose discriminatory content or pricing policies, censor dissident voices, etc.? Parminder is right. Especially considering Ethos was formed as a shell for this sale, its interests in maintaining the integrity of .ORG in a resale are even more slim, since it would likely dissolve following a resale and have no concerns about reputational cost. If you don't think Ethos is going to resell PIR at some point, then I suggest you take a look at other billion dollar 'commodities' in the marketplace. <br> <br>And if there really is no motivation to undertake future actions that would be harmful to .ORG registrants, there should be no issue in agreeing to binding protections that would prevent such harms from coming about, but we have yet to see anything of the sort emerge. <div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Any talk of Ethos/PIR stewardship councils or advisory bodies are red herrings and should be rejected outright.</b> No matter what Ethos tell us today, such entities are toothless, will have only an advisory capacity and likely will be ignored (like most powerless advisory councils that disagree with those who are seeking to be advised).<div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Milton —</b><br>First and foremost, thank you for all your work with the NCSG on this issue. It's a strong letter, and Access Now looks forward to supporting it. The call for ICANN to impose stronger safeguards for the .ORG TLD highlighted in the letter is extremely important, and complementary to the call (supported by 175+ organizations) for ISOC to stop the sale to Ethos. To be clear, I don't think anyone is calling for the sale to be stopped as their only objective. I am certainly not. Rather, it is the first, and most urgent, call among several, targeting one of several actors involved. ICANN's intervention to improve protections for .ORG is another very important goal, as is Article 7.5 of the Agreement. Again, ISOC should reverse the decision and if not ICANN should prevent it from proceeding. <br> <br>ISOC has done a (largely) great and unrecognized job to date on stewarding .ORG. While we might agree or disagree that is desirable to relieve ISOC of what has apparently become a unwanted burden of overseeing PIR, it is imperative to keep PIR's management in the nonprofit community (and my strong preference is for it to remain in the hands of .ORG), particularly under the terms of the current Registry Agreement with ICANN. Ayden is absolutely right in saying that, with or without those new safeguards, the sale is dangerous and should not be allowed to continue. </div><div><br></div><div>I am concerned where .ORG will be 2020 but I am much more concerned where it will be 2025. Once .ORG is allowed to transfer to private sector control, it will inevitably become a commodity that, with time, makes its way into the hands of those who stand to gain from its control and are willing the pay the price to have it — that could be the Saudi or Chinese governments, or Novalpina Capital. Once .ORG is transitioned to the private sector, we as civil society would almost surely never get it back. The sale should be stopped and amendments should be made to the Registry Agreement to upgrade ICANN processes and ORG’s original RFP.</div><div><br></div><div>Brett</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Brett Solomon<br>Executive Director <br>Access Now | <a href="https://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a> <br><br></div>@solomonbrett<br><div>Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB<br>Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:small">*</span><b style="font-size:small">Subscribe</b><span style="font-size:small"> to the </span><a href="https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">Access Now Express</a><span style="font-size:small">, our weekly newsletter on digital rights</span><br></div></div><div><div style="font-size:small">*<b>Protect digital rights</b> around the world - <a href="https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">support Access Now</a> with a donation today</div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:small"></div></span></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:22 AM Wisdom Donkor <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><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">+1 also, </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 5:36 AM parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">+1</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Tapani, you put it extremely well, and
pithily. That is the core issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Those who believe that everything can be
reduced to money and market mechanisms are generally recognised
as neoliberal. A very big part of the global civil society is
strongly in opposition to that sentiment, and it also attracts
popular resentment.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">We believe that many resources are better
managed in non-profit forms, and .org historically and by its
nature is one such. It is not a matter of financial soundness,
or even transparency of the deal, much less what is Ethos is
ready to commit. Ethos came into existence just for making money
out of this community asset, FB was a very well established
company when it took over whatsapp and made a commitment that it
will not cross-use the two companies' data sets, and in a few
years they fully went back on that promise and nothing could be
done about it. How are Ethos's commitments more trustworthy,
that is even if one supposes that everything that we need and
expect from .org being managed primarily in the community's
interest can actually be put as a list of upfront demands --
they cannot be.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder </font><br>
</p>
<div>On 18/12/19 6:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi George,
I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
"What registrants and supporters have lost is the emotional benefit of
being a part of a not-for-profit community and helping to support
causes in that community in which they believe."
Exactly.
For many people the issue isn't about money per se, but knowing that
the profits from their .org registration go to a good cause rather
than to some unknown shareholders' only interested in money is the
thing that matters.
That's something that really cannot be measured with money.
I guess one of the key divides here is that some people don't
understand that - indeed some seem to believe that everything, or at
least everything that matters in this context, can be measured with
money, whereas for others that exact idea is an anathema to be fought
at all costs.
Tapani
On Dec 17 12:42, George Sadowsky (<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Brett,
I don't know what the outcome of this issue will be. If the sale goes through, there will be a healing period, perhaps long and perhaps destructive for ISOC. I do express my hope that whatever happens, ISOC's goals and activities will not be negatively impacted. But I admit that I do not know.
I would rather that the sale not have proceeded, and certainly not in the way that it did. But I am willing to live with a decision that I don't like (it wouldn't be the first time) if a greater good depended on it, and I will support the more important objective even though I don't like the decision.
The outstanding issue in my mind is focused on the extent to which the .org registrants feel that they have lost something really valuable in the transaction. Now I know that .org is just another registry, albeit a very well run one, from a technical point of view. What registrants and supporters have lost is the emotional benefit of being a part of a not-for-profit community and helping to support causes in that community in which they believe. If thatsense can be preserved and even strengthened, I think that dissenters to the transaction will ultimately be satisfied. But at present we have no knowledge of what Ethos' plans are, and there is unlikely to be any binding commitment until the situation is impossible to reverse. It's a lousy state of affairs, and the sooner that Ethos is willing to say something, the better.
I am more inclined than most to trust what they say, but they are not saying much at all, and I can well understand the frustration of those who complain.
George
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon <a href="mailto:brett@accessnow.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><brett@accessnow.org></a> wrote:
George et al,
I started this email a few days back and it was in my inbox but I wanted to send it even though this is an old thread.
I agree ISOC is an important and valued organization. One that many of us partner with, have trusted over numerous years and have respected for its contribution. However you conclusions are very far from where I sit. In fact I contend the opposite:
The future of ISOC depends not on selling PIR but on maintaining it - this sorry episode has so significantly damaged ISOC's reputation, that the worst thing it could do now is to proceed. It should reverse its decision, rebuild trust with the community and continue to implement its mission.
You say - 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. I think that the future of PIR should be our primary concern, and a side product of protecting it and .ORG, is to ensure the future of ISOC.
A sale will result in the destabilization of .ORG and the 10 million registrants and risks destroying ISOC in the process.
Brett
Brett Solomon
Executive Director
Access Now | <a href="http://accessnow.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a> <a href="https://accessnow.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://accessnow.org/></a>
@solomonbrett
Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
*Subscribe to the Access Now Express <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up></a>, our weekly newsletter on digital rights
*Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now <a href="https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1></a> with a donation today
Brett Solomon
Executive Director
Access Now | <a href="http://accessnow.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a> <a href="https://accessnow.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://accessnow.org/></a>
@solomonbrett
Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
*Subscribe to the Access Now Express <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up></a>, our weekly newsletter on digital rights
*Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now <a href="https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1></a> with a donation today
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:ayden@ferdeline.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ayden@ferdeline.com</a> <a href="mailto:ayden@ferdeline.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:ayden@ferdeline.com></a>> wrote:
Hi George,
I am afraid I don't share your optimism. But I appreciate the attempt at moving us forward to somewhere a little less combative.
I think this webinar is premature. Yes, it is helpful to have more of a dialogue with Ethos Capital. But unless they are coming forward with actual plans - not hypotheticals, not ideas, not 'listening' for feedback - this webinar will just be another hour of uncertainty. What we need now is real information. We need to know what legal entity PIR will be becoming, what it's bylaws will say, what it's business model is, what the pitch to investors was. We don't want nor can we accept more open-ended statements or breakable promises.
If, as a show of good faith, Ethos does start disclosing that information, then I agree we might be able to move forward and discuss the role of this advisory council. But absent this information, being well-intentioned isn't enough. When we're dealing with a newly-created shell company, we need real assurances for the future.
Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, December 13, 2019 5:28 AM, George Sadowsky <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">governance@lists.riseup.net</a> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net></a>> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>The announcement of this Webinar is a very promising development.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325
8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky
<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com></a> <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a> <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><http://www.georgesadowsky.org/></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>---
To unsubscribe: <<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a> <a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>>
List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a> <a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325
8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky
<a href="mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">george.sadowsky@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://www.georgesadowsky.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.georgesadowsky.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>---
To unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>---
To unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
---<br>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>><br>
</blockquote></div>
---<br>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>><br>
</blockquote></div></div>