<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Ayden,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think that it was is clearly unfair of you to post this document, of which I am the principal author, without also posting the context in which I presented it on the ISOC Policy list. I am posting that context here below, as well as the original copy of the document. You asked me a number of followup questions, and I responded to those, I am also posting that interchange below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In particular, you could have already read the first message below, and if you believed that I was reporting truthfully, you knew that I was the instigator of the proposed meeting, not anyone else. Yet you post below:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> "It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There is no truth to the implications in this statement and I believe that you know it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">George Sadowsky</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/02/2020 15:22, George Sadowsky via InternetPolicy wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9FADCAC3-B6C8-4725-BA10-12553AE6E2B2@gmail.com" class=""><div class="">All,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am intervening to provide the facts about the so-called "secret peace treaty" as Kieren so ineptly and inaccurately appeared to characterize it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am the principal author of the attached document that describes what my colleague Kathy Kleiman and I were trying to accomplish in working toward the so-called "secret meeting." It wasn't secret and it wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to understand the best ways of salvaging what we could that was valuable from the damage being done during the current uproar about the proposed .org sale. The document speaks for itself. It's attached at the bottom of this message. Read it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We wanted to provide an opportunity to explore possible paths that would minimize damage to the ISOC/.org/NGO/NFP community when this issue was finally resolved, whether it was resolved one way or the other. We believe that there is an enormous amount of value of value in what ISOC and PIR have accomplished, both jointly and separately, and we want to preserve it and build upon it for a better Internet not only for this community but also for all Internet beneficiaries, current and future.. These are institutions that have contributed substantially to a better and more accessible Internet and to the well-being of our community. If that is a crime, I proudly plead guilty.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We offered the meeting as a mechanism that might lead to a better choice of solutions for all of is, i.e. a win-win-win scenario. We hoped that we could find or craft out-of-the-box ways in which all of us could benefit more than what appears to be happening now. We thought that this community might actually appreciate attempts to improve what is now approaching a very polarized state of affairs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We approached participants involved in the sale for funding because we felt that it would be an opportunity for them to learn and discuss objections to the sale in a rational and non-accusatory environment. We believe that the current state of polarization discourages if not prevents rational discussion in a fully open meeting, and we hoped for new ideas from the meeting that could then be floated openly among a much sider group. Based upon their plans and their constraints, the sale participants felt that the proposed meeting did not fit into their idea how to proceed, and after considerable discussion including a lot of listening on their part, they declined. I think that they made a mistake, but they in turn believe that they are acting in their best interests. That is their right.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you think that the approach of having such a meeting is wrong, attack me, not them. I am the principal person responsible. If in the future you are interested in the truth, I suggest that you should find a more reliable source from which to get your information.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">George Sadowsky</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></div></body></html>