<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">I thought the below may be useful to the
people here ... parminder</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [Internet Policy] I just listened to the video
teleconference about Ethos and the proposed new .org
registry.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:56:46 -0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Brandt Dainow via InternetPolicy
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"><internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Reply-To:
</th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bd@thinkmetrics.com">bd@thinkmetrics.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Organisation:
</th>
<td>Thinkmetrics</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>'Jay Sulzberger' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jays@panix.com"><jays@panix.com></a>, ISOC Internet
Policy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org"><internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
Here's a quick summary of my understanding of what has emerged
from the<br>
webinar with the PIR and Ethos Capital:<br>
<br>
They all agree that .org's are different and unique and that as a<br>
consequence, so is the PIR. Eric's of Ethos Capital's words were
that .org<br>
says "that organisation is out there because there is something
they believe<br>
in". (For the purposes of this forum, I suggest this settles the
question of<br>
whether the PIR is just another registry business or whether .orgs
are<br>
different and deserving of special treatment - the people running
it, and<br>
the people buying it, say it is different. Furthermore, comments
below<br>
indicate they think that difference is what gives the PIR its
value.)<br>
<br>
The PIR does not have a domain squatting problem or any other of
the issues<br>
associated with commercial TLD's. PIR was eager to point out how
clean the<br>
registry is, and that has always been the cleanest TLD of all. In
the PIR's<br>
view there is nothing within their activity which needs to be
fixed, this is<br>
all about expansion and enhancement.<br>
<br>
The PIR will be reconstituted as a Public Benefit LLC. According
to PIR's<br>
legal council, this means that the PIR's current mission focus of
"offering<br>
low-cost services to non-profit organisations" will be enshrined
in the<br>
company responsibilities, thus overriding the primary
responsibility to the<br>
shareholders. While I understand this to be the aim of the PBLLC<br>
legislation, it is not certain that it will have this effect in
practice -<br>
legal scholars differ on this point and it has yet to be tried in
courts.<br>
(See<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1919&context=">https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1919&context=</a><br>
facpubs "Is the Public Benefit Corporation Trivial?") <br>
It may be that being a Public Benefit LLC will lock them down to
the terms<br>
of their formation, but we have yet to see what those terms are.
It's<br>
possible they could be written in manner which allows for the PIR
to do<br>
almost anything, or in a manner which is open to different
interpretations.<br>
It is also possible that they won't be very binding anyway. <br>
There will a Stewardship Council (SC) - initially appointed by the
PIR, and<br>
soon. Size of the SC is unknown. The SC will recruit new members.
Term of<br>
membership will be 1-3 years. Members will not be appointed by the
PIR or<br>
voted in by any democratic system. As I understand it, once
populated by<br>
people approved by the PIR, the SC will become self-sustaining.
Members<br>
will not be paid. Companies cannot be members.<br>
<br>
The SC will take input from the .org community. How is yet to be<br>
determined. It is unclear whether the SC will "interpret" or poll
.org<br>
opinions or pass them on unmodified or simply use them (in a
manner<br>
determined by them) to formulate their own SC opinions.<br>
<br>
The SC will (I think) have some authority over launching of some
new PIR<br>
initiatives. It will be able to give an opinion on price rises,
but not<br>
stop them.<br>
<br>
My understanding is that the SC is an important branding exercise
for Ethos,<br>
which is not to say it's illusionary, but there may be some spin
here. Eric<br>
(Ethos) said "it's mission critical for people to understand that
we are<br>
going to be hands off . because if the public believe that is not
the case<br>
it very much damages the brand, the long-term brand, of the
business" <br>
So - the purpose of the SC is to interact with the PIR board is to
ensure<br>
the .org community are happy with the way the PIR acts, but I
think they are<br>
spinning how much limitation there will really be over what the
PIR does. <br>
The SC will be initially composed of Ethos appointees, who will
almost<br>
certainly share the same vision of things as Ethos, and will then
pick<br>
future SC members. So it's difficult to see how such a body will
come to<br>
include a representative range of viewpoints. <br>
All of this is meaningless if the .org community can't communicate
its<br>
views. This requires that the SC has a proper communication
channel, and<br>
that the SC fairly and accurately passes those views to the PIR. <br>
The big issue here is how the .org community communicates. First,
there<br>
seems to be an assumption the .org community will have a single
opinion on<br>
every issue. With millions of members, that's almost certainly
never going<br>
to be the case. So a range of opinions needs to be represented<br>
proportionally. That requires specific forms of communication
channel - not<br>
all structures will allow for that. It's also unclear how a .org
community<br>
can even be brought into existence. The only thing they all have
in common<br>
is ownership of a .org domain name. How does one get the local
sports team,<br>
a national hospital and an international charity communicating
together and<br>
what are their common interests here? Several times it was
mentioned how<br>
important it was to bring the leaders of major NGO's and charities
into the<br>
process, so there is a danger it will simply become a bunch of
professional<br>
leaders of very large enterprises talking amongst themselves in an
elitist<br>
filter bubble, especially if membership of the SC is by invitation
from<br>
within the SC. I think it unlikely they would invite into their
ranks<br>
anyone who has made them feel uncomfortable with tough questions
and strong<br>
criticisms.<br>
<br>
Finally, and perhaps most important - what the PIR and Ethos
Capital propose<br>
does not address the fundamental objection. It addresses concerns
people<br>
have regarding foreseeable harms from the shift from
not-for-profit to<br>
profit. However, it still leaves the PIR as a profit-oriented
company.<br>
Some people object to that. Not because of what we can imagine
could go<br>
wrong, but on principle. This principle may be founded on fear of<br>
unknowable consequences - in which we accept the future will
always surprise<br>
us, so we avoid opening the door to risks we can't predict by
selling the<br>
PIR to a small group of billionaires, and thus putting the PIR
into play as<br>
a tradable market commodity. Alternatively, some people simply
believe a<br>
society is a better one if there are parts of it which are not run
for<br>
profit. <br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>