<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">I forwarded these questions about .org sale
to ISOC CEO on the ISOC Internet policy elist... thought this
group may also be interested.. parminder </font></p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><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] on the proposed transfer of PRI</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:36:45 +0530</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>parminder 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>parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org">internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hi Andrew</p>
<p>In case the direct questions about the .org sale were not too
evident in my below email, and you prefer to engage with clear
direct questions, I'd try and make them clear:</p>
<p>ICANN delegated .org to ISOC following <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm">certain
criteria</a>, which it obviously felt necessary for an .org
operator to qualify. In selling .org to Ethos, did ISOC assess
Ethos on those criteria? <br>
</p>
<p>If your response is yes, can you please describe some evidence
of it. <br>
</p>
<p>If your response is no, you did not consider it necessary to
employ ICANN's original criteria for evaluating a potential new
operator of .org, then I have some other questions for you.</p>
<p>Why so? Do you think that time and conditions has changed and
these criteria are no longer relevant? If so, what is your
basis for such a supposition -- how have the time and conditions
changed to make those original criteria irrelevant? <br>
</p>
<p>Or did you decide that, since ICANN still has to clear the
transfer, it is ICANN's and not your job to apply these
criteria?<br>
</p>
<p>If this was why you did not apply those criteria, dont you
think that -- being a public interest organisation, accountable
to almost the same or similar constituency as ICANN is, and also
closely aligned to ICANN in many ways (I* organisations and all)
-- you should have applied these public interest criteria on the
basis of which ICANN originally allocated .org to ISOC? In not
doing so, did you not betray the trust and interests of your
constituencies, and of ICANN, that was so good as to allocate
.org to ISOC and save ISOC and ISOC's finances in dire times? <br>
</p>
<p>Many consider, including what I read from Vint Cerf's article,
that ICANN's delegation of .org to ISOC was indeed a kind of
grant to help ISOC. If so, does not the implied trust and
fiduciary responsibility make it even more incumbent upon ISOC
to consider ICANN's original criteria in taking a decision in
divesting .org to a new owner? <br>
</p>
<p>Do you have any reason to think that ICANN no longer stands by
those original criteria? if you so think, can you help us
understand the basis of that... If you have no reason to think
that ICANN still does not stand by those original criteria, and
you having not considered those criteria in selling .org, can
ISOC not legitimately be accused of recklessness and making a
mess of the whole thing when it is very likely that ICANN would
still apply those criteria and cancel the deal? <br>
</p>
<p>BTW, whether ISOC considered the criteria or not, Andrew, do
you really think Ethos would have qualified those criteria? I
did especially point in my below emails to criteria 6, 5 and 4.
I for one can see no way Ethos can meet them. The sale is wrong
just on that basis. <br>
</p>
<p>Somewhat separately:<br>
</p>
<p>I do note that you say in a recent email that " the total price
received by ISOC was not in fact the only thing we were
concerned about" .. what other things you were concerned about,
meaning what other criteria you employed? I dont see why your
own criteria should be classified, as ICANN's original ones were
not. <br>
</p>
<p>Thanks, parminder <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/01/20 11:20 AM, parminder via
InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:aa564ae1-57e2-fdd1-cf8c-7507d05c142e@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>What I understand Vint to say is:</p>
<p>.org has earlier been managed quite well by for-profits, and
then it was delegated to ISOC, whereby although it provided
ISOC a revenue stream, due to ISOC's non-profit status, .org
was actually constrained to function as it best could and
should have.... This defect gets corrected by the sale of
.org even as it even better fulfils the requirement of
sustained revenue for ISOC.... Two birds killed by one stone,
what could be better...<br>
</p>
<p>So, either it was ICANN's explicit purpose to provide ISOC
with a grant through delegation of .org, or ICANN simply made
a mistake in delegating .org to ISOC when as Vint thinks
nonprofit ownership is not the best for .org's own functioning
as a registry (if we remove the consideration of revenue
stream for ISOC). <br>
</p>
<p>I actually do think that ICANN made a grant to ISOC by
delegating .org to it, but if we are just to go by the
official papers, this was no part of the consideration, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm">see
here the criteria for assessing proposal to manage .org <br>
</a></p>
<p>Interestingly as one sees the criteria, one finds some very
significant ones related to non commercial or NGO constituency
-- like, the need for demonstrated support among non-
commercial registrants (criterion 6), participatory
mechanism involving non commercial users in policy making
(criterion 5), and strong differentiation of the registry
towards non commercial users (criterion 44)...</p>
<p>My question in this regard is:</p>
<p>A governance body acting on behalf of the Internet community
-- ie ICANN -- gives a resource to ISOC as a favour so that it
can make some money but also manage the resource well for the
community. Is it ok for ISOC to unilaterally divest that
resource without considering whether the party it is divesting
the resource in favour of meets the initial criteria that
ICANN had for a manager of that resource? <br>
</p>
<p>Is it not ISOC's responsibility to at least assert that any
new party being put in charge of that resource is vetted for
ICANN's initial criteria to allocate that resource?</p>
<p>My question to Vint, if he might, but certainly to Andrew and
ISOC, is, did they vet Ethos on the basis of the criteria that
ICANN initially employed in delegating .org -- and actually
did a big favour to give it to ISOC because it also meant a
big grant to it?<br>
</p>
<p>Can they show us any proof of such vetting?</p>
<p>I certainly cannot see how Ethos, very recently set up for
the purpose of acquiring .org, , for instance, meets the
criteria 6 of a demonstrated support among non commercial
users.... Or even 5 or 4. <br>
</p>
<p>In the circumstances, is it not a grave breach of trust and
accountability for ISOC to sell off .org which was handed to
it following some explicit criteria, apart from it also being
a grant, without ascertaining whethert the new .org manager
met those criteria which ICANN and presumably the Internet
community wanted to see in any .org manager? <br>
</p>
<p>thanks for your engagement, and hopefully expected response.
<br>
</p>
<p>For ICANN, my humble question is: Is there any reason not to
follow once again for .org sale the initial criteria they had
for delegation of .org, and testing Ethos against them? But
if ICANN thinks circumstances have now changed, would they be
as good as to inform the community how have they changed?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>parminder <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/01/20 2:25 AM, vinton cerf
via InternetPolicy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAFtm_U-2r2oWe4-GE-pPrUUqTUd4qA6-GaaMCEUHiyesSf89w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br
class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
A STRONGER FUTURE FOR .ORG AND THE INTERNET</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By VINTON G. CERF</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over the past several weeks, I have
watched with disappointment the controversy surrounding
Ethos Capital’s proposed acquisition of the Public
Interest Registry – which runs the .org domain – from the
Internet Society. I am in favor of this acquisition and
would like to explain why.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, it is worth remembering that
.org was managed by several for-profit companies in the
past: Network Solutions, SAIC and VeriSign. As nearly as I
can tell, these operations were beneficial and, at least,
not harmful, to the .org brand.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, when the operation of .org was
transferred to the Internet Society, it created the
non-profit called Public Interest Registry, or PIR. PIR’s
primary objectives were, first, to operate .org and,
second, to provide significant support for the Internet
Society by essentially allocating any surplus from the
operation of PIR to fund the Internet Society’s work in
promoting a more accessible and secure Internet. This
amounted to about $50 million a year, which was hugely
helpful to the Internet Society but limited PIR’s ability
to invest in improvements to the operation of .org or even
the creation of new products and services for the
non-profit community.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The consequence of PIR’s non-profit
operation and its obligations to the Internet Society was
that it limited PIR’s ability to invest in its own
operation. Now, let’s consider the situation after the
proposed transaction. First, ISOC will receive an
endowment of over $1 billion, which it will need to
manage. That’s a non-trivial task, but also one that is
independent of the ups and downs of the domain name
business. Second, PIR becomes a for-profit operation and
its investors can establish a policy of investing profits
back into the company in addition to distributing earnings
to shareholders. Both organizations end up with new
incentives for their operation that are beneficial
compared to their earlier relationship of interdependence.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Third, nothing prevents Ethos from
adopting – and in fact it has every incentive to adopt –
community-friendly policies for the operation of PIR.
Indeed, it is wise for Ethos to take steps to reassure the
.org customer base, especially about costs. Even though
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) has relieved registry operators from constraints
on price increases, Ethos has voluntarily agreed to
policies based on the earlier guidelines established by
ICANN, and has said that any increase would not be more
than 10% per year on average. Moreover, as a for-profit
company, PIR has a clear rationale for not driving away
its customer base by any excessive raising of prices.
Given current .org pricing, a 10% increase in price would
be less than $1. Even if an organization had registered a
dozen .org domain names, it is hard to believe that such
an increase would be viewed as unsustainable for most
non-profits. Of course, companies that hold domain names
in the tens of thousands for speculative purposes might
find such increases more troubling, but I don’t have much
sympathy for that business model in the context of the
organizations the .org brand is intended to serve.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fourth, it is worth pointing out that
the Internet Society did not seek this transaction, but
its Board of Trustees responded with due diligence and
with the help of highly qualified financial advisors to
conclude that this was a transaction in its interest, and
that it would further the Internet Society’s fundamental
purposes regarding the Internet and its beneficial
operation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From the perspective of PIR’s millions
of customers, what is important is what Ethos actually
chooses to do regarding the operation of .org. In addition
to its commitment to limit price increases, Ethos has
proposed to create a Stewardship Council to advise the
Board on key decisions that could affect .org users or the
Internet ecosystem. It is my understanding that Ethos
intends for the Stewardship Council to have considerable
authority. <a name="m_1169161627711282159__Hlk29644508"
moz-do-not-send="true">The Council</a>, for example,
will take on the role of ratifying strong rules protecting
freedom of expression and safeguarding against censorship.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ethos is also proposing to set up a
Community Enablement Fund for the purpose of underwriting
efforts beneficial to the .org community, which will be
funded at a level that is substantially more than PIR can
invest today. The Stewardship Council will manage the
process of evaluating proposals to be supported.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All of these commitments, as well as
the fundamental logic of the proposed transaction,
convince me that this is the right path forward for the
Internet Society, for PIR, for Ethos and for the .org
community.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Vinton Cerf</i></b><i> is
Google’s chief Internet evangelist. </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i> </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u> </u></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login" moz-do-not-send="true">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a>
and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login" moz-do-not-send="true">https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login</a>
and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>