<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear Carlos</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Thanks for your response. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Not trying to corner you or anyone but still
trying to understand your position (and its basis), and also
further arguing my point through an</font><font face="Verdana">
analogy</font><font face="Verdana">:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">If you think .org can be disposed off to be
run by an ordinary business, after just putting some conditions,
does that mean that CGI.br -- the Brazilian non-profit custodian
of .br -- could as well also do the same with .br -- sell it off
to an ordinary business, perhaps with some conditions, making a
huge profit that can be used to forever sustain CGI.br and also
undertake much more resourcefully many other Internet spread
related functions that CGI.br does?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"> I may not be so sure of CGI.br itself or
ISOC-Brazil, but do you not think there will be widespread
popular opposition in Brazil if this is done?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">This analogy IMHO holds because if .br is a
Brazilian common good (or commons), many people consider .org to
similarly be a global common good.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">thanks and best regards</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/12/19 1:23 AM, Carlos Afonso
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:eb7777c0-323d-4402-49b2-a526ae08e176@cafonso.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Parminder, Jacqueline and others,
I am writing on a personal basis here, not representing the Brazilian chapter of ISOC, nor the institute I work with (Nupef) or any other organization.
Responding to Parminder's question (and at this point I am not sure any letter from IGC was sent), I am of course not against anyone writing letters. I do disagree with the argument that, at least in crucial cases like the PIR/ISOC transition, an arbitrary "rough consensus" is enough for sending a letter in representation of all of the IGC, particularly when there are manifest and strong disagreements on it already expressed in the list. I agree with Milton Mueller's points (msg of Dec.19) questioning the drafted letter.
Finally, I agree with the NCSG letter sent on Dec.9th to ICANN, in which NCSG essentially calls for adherence of the new .ORG TLD holders to the original RFP which reassigned .ORG from Verisign to PIR. NCSG is *not* calling for the suspension of the sale, provided that certain conditions are met, basically, inter alia (quoting from the letter):
- A revised notification procedure in which wholesale price increases of any amount give
ORG registrants 6 months to renew their domains for periods of up to 20 years at the
pre-existing annual rate. Implementation of this revised notification procedure must be
obligatory to both PIR as well as any registrar through which .org domain names are
registered and/or renewed.
- A strong commitment that the administration of the ORG domain will remain
content-neutral; that is, the registry will not suspend or take away domains based on
their publication of political, cultural, social, ethnic, religious, and personal content, even untrue, offensive, indecent, or unethical material, like that protected under the U.S. First Amendment.
- An elimination of the URS procedure within the ORG domain, as the rights protection
mechanisms specific to the URS were appropriate only for new domains.
PIR has already responded basically agreeing to these demands.
fraternal regards
--c.a.
On 20/12/2019 18:12, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Does rough consensus work if people who don't agree simply don't
participate in the drafting of a letter with which they don't agree?
Or if people disagree, but aren't able to deal with the rough and tumble of
the list and so don't post?
What about those who aren't comfortable with writing about this in English,
but are members of the IGC who disagree?
Maybe polling might be useful in certain cases when the "huge" amount of
support doesn't come from a correspondingly "huge" proportion of the email
addresses listed as members.
The poll sent out asking about sending a letter at all did not prevent
people voting multiple times, BTW. Even so, the responses were a small
number, I believe - about 40? Out of hundreds of members.
Regards
Jacqueline
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm parminder, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">*consensus* in the caucus.
Actually as per the charter rough consensus is enough...
I did not see any clear opposition other than Milton's perhaps, and a
huge amount of support for the letter, which clearly meets the standard
of rough consensus.
BTW, at a personal level, if you allow me to, may I ask, Carlos, are
you opposed to the IGC writing this letter and opposing the sale of .org?
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
[]s fraternos
--c.a.
On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi all,
Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu"><milton@gatech.edu></a> a
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Sheetal:
This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">line below:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Dear Milton,
Hope you are well.
Thanks for your email, even if i totally disagree :-)
For me, the IGC is in its right to sign exactly this letter and
public it somewhere at <IGCaucus.ORG>/letters.
We have waste too much time until now and i don't want to
imagine why...
Please let me know how you feel with the followings issues.
~°~
...issues at hands (as identified by participants in various
PIR Sale
discussions :
•—
• The (Conflicting) Ethical Aspects of the Public Interest
Registry (PIR) Sale's Decision
• The PIR Sale Decision-making process
• InternetSociety.ORG members's active participation
• The (Conflicting) Break of a Trust Anchor
• The (conflicting) Future of the PIR (FotP) (or Let's go for a
Free commons PIR - cPIR ?)
• (Conflicting) Rejuvenation Process for a better
Future of the InternetSociety.ORG (FotIS)
• (Conflicting) Impacts in the Future of the Internet (FotI)
•—
~°~
Thanks.
Shalom,
--sb.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">.org
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken
ISOC.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">of control of one medium-size TLD registry significantly alter the DNS? The
letter loses credibility right off the bat by making claims that cannot be
backed up.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against
commercial exploitation.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">fulfillment of the obligation in the original RFP), there was no meaningful
difference between the way PIR was run and most other gTLD registries was
run, both in terms of pricing and service. This observation both unfairly
casts aspersions on all commercial registries while falsely idealizing PIR.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial
objectives.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they
don’t want to that things will be better?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">allowed ISOC to take an even more active role in shaping Internet
infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose some
of its ability to directly impact how millions of people around the world
positively experience the Internet every day, and we think that is a great
pity.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">it knows what is good for ISOC better than ISOC’s trustees and staff do.
This also shows a lack of knowledge. Running one TLD registry out of 2000
with less than 5% share of world registrations does not really do much to
“shape internet infrastructure.” Supporting IETF shapes internet
infrastructure, running ORG does not. It also ignores ISOC’s somewhat valid
concern that tying their finances to a particular line of business distorts
their objectivity regarding the future of the internet.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">correspondence and documents exchanged with ICANN in relation to the
proposed change in control of PIR. In addition, we ask that ISOC commit to
publishing on its website any filings (including motions and petitions) in
the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court relating to the change in status of the PIR.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">target. We want forward-looking information and commitments: we want Ethos
to tell us how they will fulfill the obligations in the 2002 RFP and we
want them to make new commitments, embedded in the Registry Agreement, that
will protect ORG registrants.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be
coherent with those values when making major decisions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">decision making process and the absence of a forward-looking agenda. Demand
something meaningful, please! Wish IGC had paid more attention to advice
from those of us actually active within the DNS policy environment.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
---
To unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://riseup.net/lists"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">---
To unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://riseup.net/lists"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
---
To unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"><mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></a>
List help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://riseup.net/lists"><https://riseup.net/lists></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>