From sheetal at gp-digital.org Sun Dec 1 11:44:01 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 16:44:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, all, Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?- What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital?* *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I > believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the > ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - > and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these > questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. > > ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that > there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. > And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did > before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it > has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon > wrote: > > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of > this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due > diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to > request they consider and answer certain questions. > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the > questions. See below: > > *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital* > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> >> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >>> *eliminated* by their >>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>> > >>> > Why ? >>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >>> world is under >>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >>> registrations they are >>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>> >>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >>> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to >>> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be >>> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>> >> >> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >>> >>> -Bill >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards ! >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >> Subscribe to Mailing List : < >> https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> >> __ >> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >> soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 20:17:10 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 01:17:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> Or given the numbers involved if the organisation buying a .org can show a 501c3 or equivalent certification that says it is a registered non profit in its country of origin give them the domain free  Bill the domainers whatever you like I won’t lose any sleep over it  --srs On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 6:45 AM +0530, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > On Dec 1, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital presence of work for good reasons". Can you elaborate on where you think a meaningful threshold lies? Right now, the wholesale price is $10, and the retail price is (mostly) between $11 and $21. And there are ~50x as many domain speculators as non-profits in .ORG. My own feeling, as the administrator of a number of non-profits, is that I’m relatively price-insensitive. I pay many tens of thousands of dollars to RIRs for my IP addresses each year. I pay for IRR registrations. I pay for trademarks. $11 or $100 or $1,000 really don’t make much difference one way or other in my budget. If I were running much smaller non-profits, I can imagine that $1,000 might start to be visible in the budget, but $100 still would not be. On the other hand, at $100, all but the hardiest of domain speculators would be gone. If you’re trying to maximize registry revenue, it makes much more sense to set a price in the $10-$15 range. If you’re trying to serve a constituency, it makes much more sense to set the price higher; at a price they don’t mind (because they only use one or two), but which will drive out the speculators who preclude constituent registrations (because the speculators hoard hundreds or thousands, and that’s their primary expense). -Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 8 00:54:25 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:24:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <1531156f-8ccc-9202-2e10-1c56961a7822@itforchange.net> On 08/12/19 6:38 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Below is a proposed statement calling for ISOC to cancel the deal. I > have tried to incorporate as many comments as possible that I have > heard expressed on this mailing list. It's far from complete, but I > hope this might be a helpful starting point. > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline  > > /To://    //Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, > Internet Society/ > > > /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists,/ > can we just say civil society organisations and individuals parminder > /we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring > the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet > Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry > Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. / > > > /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private > entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System > and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining > non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a > counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, > and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains > are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While > the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can > also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights > implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do > what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of > doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. > It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose > 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./ > > > /We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, > not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. / > > > /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet > community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact > assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted > stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to > protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the > people who visit their websites every day. / > > > /ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global > home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this > background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and > openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with > the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we ask that this > sale be terminated./ > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > >> Surely ISOC can still call the sale off. What penalties may exist if >> that happens, though, I don't know. But perhaps that is something >> that ISOC needs to explore? >> >> Ayden Férdeline  >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:01 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> >>> Uh...  this is an already signed contract.  ISOC doesn’t have the >>> ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, >>> so it’s not something that they can be talked into.   >>> >>> So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. >>> The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the >>> Pennsylvania courts.  ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, >>> and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of >>> nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose.  >>>      >>>                 -Bill >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>  >>>> I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as >>>> ideally I also want the sale stopped. >>>> >>>> I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current >>>> Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was >>>> stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not >>>> consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. >>>> This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we >>>> are dealing with the current board and what they think. >>>> >>>> Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board >>>> some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I >>>> do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a >>>> benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a >>>> condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of >>>> registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when >>>> Ethos inevitably refuses? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what >>>>> we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general >>>>> agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression >>>>> that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that >>>>> accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be >>>>> incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a >>>>> halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. >>>>> >>>>> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I >>>>> suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then >>>>> go with that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and >>>>> questions. >>>>> >>>>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it >>>>> will be a disaster. >>>>> >>>>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to >>>>> change its decision here. >>>>> >>>>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees >>>>> make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference >>>>> between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>>>> >>>>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, >>>>> and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more >>>>> important than meeting the public interest elements of their >>>>> charter. >>>>> >>>>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many >>>>> of their comments. >>>>> >>>>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was >>>>> proposing. >>>>> >>>>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing >>>>> down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is >>>>> sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), >>>>> then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition >>>>> the sale on there being certain protections in place for >>>>> registrants. >>>>> >>>>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that >>>>> ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in >>>>> Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a >>>>> fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to >>>>> increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that >>>>> obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of >>>>> operating PIR differently going forward, this is not >>>>> consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize >>>>> shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best >>>>> interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>>>> >>>>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than >>>>> just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR >>>>> incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B >>>>> Certification, which is what we are being offered at the >>>>> moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>>>> >>>>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even >>>>> if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have >>>>> long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to >>>>> consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B >>>>> Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos >>>>> Capital so desires. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and >>>>> to consider what is in the interests of the broader >>>>> non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial >>>>> communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just >>>>> being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and >>>>> I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a >>>>> membership-based organization, it is essentially an >>>>> independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies >>>>> that we need to attempt to address there in the future, >>>>> particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But >>>>> the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps >>>>> forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>>>> >>>>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for >>>>> what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm >>>>> that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>   >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in >>>>>> our statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the >>>>>> initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Few comments: >>>>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of >>>>>> Money.... in any case... >>>>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in >>>>>> reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind >>>>>> handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring >>>>>> expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough >>>>>> benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to >>>>>> ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar >>>>>> not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working >>>>>> for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the >>>>>> Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit >>>>>> next one after ISOC....  >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it >>>>>> into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies >>>>>> even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the >>>>>> CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) >>>>>> ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional >>>>>> support board...  >>>>>> >>>>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created >>>>>> with the points shared by you... >>>>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = = >>>>>> >>>>>>  /To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, >>>>>> Internet Society/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /As members of a network which encompasses many >>>>>> non-commercial organizations and public interest >>>>>> technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that >>>>>> Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest >>>>>> Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including >>>>>> the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.  / >>>>>> >>>>>> /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a >>>>>> private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name >>>>>> System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the >>>>>> only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry >>>>>> operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial >>>>>> exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of >>>>>> its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private >>>>>> companies with purely financial objectives. While the >>>>>> interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they >>>>>> can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant >>>>>> human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, >>>>>> could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name >>>>>> registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>>>>> However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It >>>>>> allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >>>>>> infrastructure //[IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the >>>>>> Public Interest Intact”]//. In relinquishing its control over >>>>>> PIR, ISOC loses 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./ >>>>>> >>>>>> /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >>>>>> community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are >>>>>> appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of >>>>>> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit >>>>>> their websites every day. _You have the ability to put >>>>>> requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if >>>>>> appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in >>>>>> place_//.////[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps >>>>>> diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer >>>>>> “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it >>>>>> appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I >>>>>> have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009]//We encourage you to do >>>>>> just that.//[IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is >>>>>> appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific >>>>>> result that we are recommending or demanding] //As a sign of >>>>>> good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to >>>>>> incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. //[IAS: again we >>>>>> are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the >>>>>> alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a >>>>>> commercial entity to keep this public interest entity >>>>>> protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and >>>>>> understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested >>>>>> the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume >>>>>> that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] >>>>>> //We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are >>>>>> evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same >>>>>> thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >>>>>> certification. //[IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a >>>>>> proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the >>>>>> public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In >>>>>> the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this >>>>>> ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of >>>>>> decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest >>>>>> entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, >>>>>> how they accepted it?]/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /_Large parts of the world_////[IAS: I suggest that here we >>>>>> have to use other terms which has higher weightage >>>>>> (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has >>>>>> responded like this “the objections are not reported from the >>>>>> majority of users, which means the majority of the users has >>>>>> no concern who is running the registry”]//are uncomfortable >>>>>> with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial >>>>>> interests, and _many of our members_ //[IAS: I suggest that >>>>>> we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC >>>>>> coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] //are deeply >>>>>> uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, >>>>>> incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a >>>>>> sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets >>>>>> of PIR, and could be //[IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have >>>>>> been assured”] //an effective means of mitigating against >>>>>> some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this >>>>>> sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would >>>>>> require the publication of comprehensive, credible, >>>>>> independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact >>>>>> and, most importantly, require the organization to consider >>>>>> benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions >>>>>> are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor >>>>>> the promises and commitments it is making today./ >>>>>> >>>>>> /We trust that you understand why this is important to us. >>>>>> Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of >>>>>> clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR >>>>>> and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and >>>>>> non-governmental communities require assurances that the >>>>>> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use >>>>>> for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts >>>>>> are in safe hands. //[IAS: I suggest add these lines here >>>>>> “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, >>>>>> observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors >>>>>> (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, >>>>>> or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] //These are >>>>>> more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do >>>>>> good./ >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = >>>>>> = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = =   >>>>>> >>>>>> /[IAS: I also have few more concerns:/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /1.       //Needs transparency and disclosure of the >>>>>> followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked):/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /i.                     //the reasoning behind the selling >>>>>> PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /ii.                   //the reasoning behind the avoidance >>>>>> of engaging a proper bidding?,/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /iii.                  //the reasoning to giving sole power >>>>>> of decision of sales without the evaluation through open >>>>>> competition and opening comments to sell or not?,/ >>>>>> >>>>>> /iv.                 //the information of intention >>>>>> disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or >>>>>> transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the >>>>>> knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales >>>>>> agreement)./ >>>>>> >>>>>> /v.                   //Technical Terms and basis of the >>>>>> Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, >>>>>> Credibility, Dependability./ >>>>>> >>>>>> /vi.                 //Safeguards evaluated in terms of >>>>>> Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security >>>>>> evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR >>>>>> (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)/ >>>>>> >>>>>> / / >>>>>> >>>>>> /2.       //I would suggest that the statement should be in >>>>>> the following format:/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>>>> >>>>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>>>> >>>>>> What we demand: >>>>>> >>>>>> Our First Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of >>>>>> deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational >>>>>> structural design/basis/planning) >>>>>> >>>>>> Our Second Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>> A.      The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up >>>>>> the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively >>>>>> exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we >>>>>> recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of >>>>>> above…. >>>>>> >>>>>> B.      What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. >>>>>> ensure the commitment >>>>>> >>>>>> a.       Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>>>> >>>>>> b.      long term commitment (after sales), >>>>>> >>>>>> /(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial >>>>>> organization remains commitment for public interest for long >>>>>> term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for >>>>>> 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales >>>>>> this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its >>>>>> status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)/ >>>>>> >>>>>>  = = = = = = == = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = >>>>>> = == = = = >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>> >>>>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop >>>>>> the human rights clause because it is contentious and does >>>>>> not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>> > >>>>>> To: "parminder" >>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: "governance" >>>>> > >>>>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! >>>>>>> I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which >>>>>>> are clearly present in the IGC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on >>>>>>> this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we >>>>>>> could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including >>>>>>> whether people feel they need more information to be able to >>>>>>> weigh in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points >>>>>>> that we need to get across, we can work together on >>>>>>> editing/finalising text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they >>>>>>> agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * There is a need for greater transparency about the terms >>>>>>> of the sale >>>>>>> * There are potential implications for human rights if the >>>>>>> sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>>>> * As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with >>>>>>> the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for >>>>>>> an outright halt to the sale. >>>>>>> * At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for >>>>>>> greater transparency regarding the terms and potential >>>>>>> implications of this sale, and that there are >>>>>>> appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests >>>>>>> of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who >>>>>>> visit their websites every day >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this >>>>>>> is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something >>>>>>> together we might need to go with what we can all agree on >>>>>>> at a top-level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and >>>>>>> if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement >>>>>>> out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related >>>>>>> civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos >>>>>>> now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set >>>>>>> PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly >>>>>>> not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is >>>>>>> not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask >>>>>>> for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may >>>>>>>> consider issuing. Please see below. I have used >>>>>>>> Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but >>>>>>>> I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. >>>>>>>> This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to >>>>>>>> edit it to pieces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping >>>>>>>> the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise >>>>>>>> and given a number of posts on this list that seem >>>>>>>> supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach >>>>>>>> here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /To://    //Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of >>>>>>>> Trustees, Internet Society/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /As members of a network which encompasses many >>>>>>>> non-commercial organizations and public interest >>>>>>>> technologists, we are concerned by the announcement >>>>>>>> that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the >>>>>>>> Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet >>>>>>>> Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>>>>>> Registry Agreements.  / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to >>>>>>>> a private entity will significantly alter the Domain >>>>>>>> Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important >>>>>>>> role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level >>>>>>>> domain registry operator, in serving as a >>>>>>>> counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran >>>>>>>> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >>>>>>>> whereas other top-level domains are run by private >>>>>>>> companies with purely financial objectives. While the >>>>>>>> interests of companies and users do at times overlap, >>>>>>>> they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >>>>>>>> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a >>>>>>>> subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was >>>>>>>> best for domain name registrants, and has a proud >>>>>>>> history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC >>>>>>>> legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an >>>>>>>> active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In >>>>>>>> relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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./ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the >>>>>>>> Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that >>>>>>>> there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect >>>>>>>> the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and >>>>>>>> the people who visit their websites every day. You have >>>>>>>> the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to >>>>>>>> call this deal off if appropriate and binding >>>>>>>> safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to >>>>>>>> do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC >>>>>>>> have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a >>>>>>>> benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital >>>>>>>> has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, >>>>>>>> but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation >>>>>>>> and is instead a non-binding certification. / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the >>>>>>>> Internet being governed entirely by commercial >>>>>>>> interests, and many of our members are deeply >>>>>>>> uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, >>>>>>>> incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a >>>>>>>> sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the >>>>>>>> assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of >>>>>>>> mitigating against some of the risks that we can >>>>>>>> foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation >>>>>>>> in the right jurisdiction would require the publication >>>>>>>> of comprehensive, credible, independent, and >>>>>>>> transparent annual reports on social impact and, most >>>>>>>> importantly, require the organization to consider >>>>>>>> benefits to the public in addition to profit when >>>>>>>> decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos >>>>>>>> Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is >>>>>>>> making today./ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> / / >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /We trust that you understand why this is important to >>>>>>>> us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the >>>>>>>> absence of clear information about their motives behind >>>>>>>> acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the >>>>>>>> non-profit and non-governmental communities require >>>>>>>> assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>>>>>> domain names that we use for our email, websites, >>>>>>>> campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. >>>>>>>> These are more than just domains, they are symbols of >>>>>>>> our desire to do good./ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if >>>>>>>>> we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of >>>>>>>>> transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. >>>>>>>>> I've slightly reworded the below in light of the >>>>>>>>> recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of >>>>>>>>> asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this >>>>>>>>> possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's >>>>>>>>> BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /As members of a network which encompasses many >>>>>>>>> non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about >>>>>>>>> the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. >>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request >>>>>>>>> that these questions are considered in the due >>>>>>>>> diligence process:   / >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to >>>>>>>>> protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve >>>>>>>>> existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the >>>>>>>>> Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new >>>>>>>>> steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public >>>>>>>>> interest and the world community of noncommercial, >>>>>>>>> civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those >>>>>>>>> organizations engaged in missions of "public interest >>>>>>>>> around the world?" >>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns >>>>>>>>> regarding possible conflict of interest in >>>>>>>>> transference of stewardship to Ethos capital?/ >>>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>>> /We request answers to these questions in the spirit >>>>>>>>> of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial >>>>>>>>> constituency more generally and those who play a key >>>>>>>>> role in stewarding the Internet./ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC >>>>>>>>> Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* >>>>>>>>> questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the >>>>>>>>> ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think >>>>>>>>> they could - and should - and I encourage us to >>>>>>>>> place pressure on both parties to take these >>>>>>>>> questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at >>>>>>>>> least the perception that there is a revolving >>>>>>>>> door of insiders who are behind this and other >>>>>>>>> deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about >>>>>>>>> what due diligence it did before entering into the >>>>>>>>> arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it >>>>>>>>> has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, >>>>>>>>> and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the >>>>>>>>>> ICANN board. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to >>>>>>>>>>> the ICANN Board with a series of questions in >>>>>>>>>>> order to get more transparency? Bruna and I >>>>>>>>>>> discussed this, and chatted to others, and are >>>>>>>>>>> wondering what you think of this approach. As >>>>>>>>>>> the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part >>>>>>>>>>> of a due diligence process, we thought it might >>>>>>>>>>> be a constructive approach to request they >>>>>>>>>>> consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this >>>>>>>>>>> approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /When the board discusses the sale of .org, we >>>>>>>>>>> request that these questions are considered in >>>>>>>>>>> the due diligence process:   / >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to >>>>>>>>>>> protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >>>>>>>>>>> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, >>>>>>>>>>> how else does the Board intend to ensure the >>>>>>>>>>> sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act >>>>>>>>>>> on behalf of the public interest and the world >>>>>>>>>>> community of noncommercial, civil society groups >>>>>>>>>>> in the world? >>>>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those >>>>>>>>>>> organizations engaged in missions of "public >>>>>>>>>>> interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to >>>>>>>>>>> allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict >>>>>>>>>>> of interest in transference of stewardship to >>>>>>>>>>> Ethos capital/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal// >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock >>>>>>>>>>> > a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their >>>>>>>>>>> affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] >>>>>>>>>>> Internet Community is about to be >>>>>>>>>>> *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain >>>>>>>>>>> names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world >>>>>>>>>>> is under >>>>>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in >>>>>>>>>>> the Internet, even in .ORG registrations >>>>>>>>>>> they are >>>>>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses.  Please try >>>>>>>>>>> again, with simpler construction.  You >>>>>>>>>>> can break it out into as many sentences >>>>>>>>>>> as you like, but please try to make each >>>>>>>>>>> one encapsulate exactly one thought.  >>>>>>>>>>> Else nobody is going to be able to >>>>>>>>>>> engage in a constructive conversation >>>>>>>>>>> with you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without >>>>>>>>>>> argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>>>>   >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>                                 -Bill >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards !                          >>>>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | >>>>>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«/Que LE >>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! >>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎Amen‬!/» >>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. >>>>>>>>>>> #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>> «/Comme une biche soupire après des courants >>>>>>>>>>> d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô >>>>>>>>>>> DIEU!/» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: >>>>>>>>>>> F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D >>>>>>>>> 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> > >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>>> E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >> > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sun Dec 8 02:03:22 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:03:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <1642410888.10318504.1575777425255@mail.yahoo.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> <1642410888.10318504.1575777425255@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <91AEA915-FB7C-4B51-BBF8-8E2449BEF606@pch.net> > On Dec 7, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Why it will be wrongful for ICANN IANAL, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference > Why we assume prevailing party will be Ethos/PIR. We don’t need to assume one way or other. We just have to recognize that the threat of lawsuit has been used to bring ICANN to heel many times in the past, and will likely be the first resort of anyone who’s worried about their actions in the future. > ICANN has to Intervene in Public Interest at the time when dealing was exposed to it on the basis of lack of transparency, as well as avoiding bidding mechanism. Nope. ICANN has no duty relative to the terms a private transaction between ISOC and Ethos. There’s no requirement that it be transparent, nor that it be put out to bid. ICANN’s duty is to ensure that it not be detrimental to .ORG registrants or the health of the Internet ecosystem. Not the civil society multistakeholder ecosystem, but the actual workings of the Internet. > Or when they have received Public comments against the price cap removal. Removal of ICANN price control also encouraged the commercial interest magnification. Yep. But making an argument to ICANN that something bad happened because of something ICANN did in the past will just set ICANN against you. So that’s not a fruitful path. > When are writing to ISOC BoT we can also send other statement to the ICANN Board. Again, there’s no point in sending anything to the ISOC board at this point, they’re done and out. They don’t have any decisions left to make, or actions left to take. All they can do is sit around and wait to see whether money shows up in their bank account. ICANN and the relevant Pennsylvania court are the next two decision points. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Sun Dec 8 02:07:41 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 23:07:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <375BF6FE-2D11-4EFB-B6EE-2EE437F93DAA@pch.net> > On Dec 7, 2019, at 5:35 PM, Michael Palage wrote: > I think Bill is making a valid point most people are not fully appreciating. ISOC and Ethos have already signed a deal, and while the terms of the deal are still under a NDA, it would not surprise me if there was a substantial poison pill if ISOC tried to back out. Heh. Yes, they’d have their asses handed to them by Ethos’ lawyers. I don’t think it’s even in the realm of possibility that ISOC would take an action that would jeopardize their deal. Carrot is +$1.2Bn. Stick is -$500M. They don’t have that to pay even if they wanted to. Which means they’d wind up forfeiting the domain anyway, since it’s the only thing they have that’s worth anything. > In looking at ICANN’s internal procedures and past precedent, the only possible option I see at this time would be to potential incorporate some of the 2002 representations and Ethos most recent representations in a Specification 11. Can you elaborate? > I do not see how ICANN can block this deal. If they can find grounds upon which it creates real harm for registrants, or real danger to the stability of the Internet. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 8 10:10:31 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 15:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <91AEA915-FB7C-4B51-BBF8-8E2449BEF606@pch.net> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> <1642410888.10318504.1575777425255@mail.yahoo.com> <91AEA915-FB7C-4B51-BBF8-8E2449BEF606@pch.net> Message-ID: <72372308.10404988.1575817831692@mail.yahoo.com> Still I am hoping for the positive outcome through a strong statement (and not discouraged nor disappointed) . We should knock every door where we have any hope. Regards Imran On Sunday, 8 December 2019, 12:03:45 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Dec 7, 2019, at 7:57 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Why it will be wrongful for ICANN IANAL, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference > Why we assume prevailing party will be Ethos/PIR. We don’t need to assume one way or other.  We just have to recognize that the threat of lawsuit has been used to bring ICANN to heel many times in the past, and will likely be the first resort of anyone who’s worried about their actions in the future. > ICANN has to Intervene in Public Interest at the time when dealing was exposed to it on the basis of lack of transparency, as well as avoiding bidding mechanism. Nope.  ICANN has no duty relative to the terms a private transaction between ISOC and Ethos.  There’s no requirement that it be transparent, nor that it be put out to bid. ICANN’s duty is to ensure that it not be detrimental to .ORG registrants or the health of the Internet ecosystem.  Not the civil society multistakeholder ecosystem, but the actual workings of the Internet. > Or when they have received Public comments against the price cap removal. Removal of ICANN price control also encouraged the commercial interest magnification. Yep.  But making an argument to ICANN that something bad happened because of something ICANN did in the past will just set ICANN against you.  So that’s not a fruitful path. > When are writing to ISOC BoT we can also send other statement to the ICANN Board. Again, there’s no point in sending anything to the ISOC board at this point, they’re done and out.  They don’t have any decisions left to make, or actions left to take.  All they can do is sit around and wait to see whether money shows up in their bank account. ICANN and the relevant Pennsylvania court are the next two decision points.                                 -Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 8 13:58:19 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 19:58:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <4B959905-3A0A-4221-B530-0164409D40C7@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see below (inline)... Le ven. 6 déc. 2019 à 04:40, Sylvain Baya a écrit : > Hi all, > > Le mer. 4 déc. 2019 2:06 PM, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > >> Two suggestions: >> >> I wouldn’t say that getting out of the gTLD-selling business weakens or >> delegitimization ISOC. On the contrary, it disentangles them from a huge >> distraction from their mission, and gives them an endowment which secured >> their future. That’s the first thing in their minds, so I’d acknowledge >> that. >> >> Second, I think it’s worth referencing the principles of the 2002 >> transfer, which were that .ORG was to be both BY and FOR non-profits. >> > > Dear Bill, > Please can you elaborate, or just point to the criterion [1] which served > you to affirm that ? > ...i think, i get [1] the source now :-) __ [1]: 2001 "*Proposed Revision to ICANN-VeriSign Agreements*", section D.2. "*[...]* *The net result of this would be a .org registry returned, after some appropriate transition period, * *to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.* *[...]*" Thanks. Shalom, --sb. Thanks. > __ > [1]: from > > Shalom, > --sb. > > Not that non-profits were grist for a for-profit mill. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2019, at 08:32, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Sun Dec 8 15:19:44 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Dec 2019 15:19:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> In article you write: > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm R's, John From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 8 16:49:55 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 22:49:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi all, Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > In article < > CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > > > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate > the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and For** ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, > John > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sun Dec 8 16:57:14 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 21:57:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> Message-ID: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > >> In article <[CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com](mailto:CAJjTEvFXJ%2BZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p%2BO_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com)> you write: >> >>> >> >> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > > Dear John, > ...have you used it yourselves ? > >> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > >> R's, >> John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sun Dec 8 17:20:30 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 22:20:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Op-Ed from first board chair of Public Interest Registry calling for sale to be halted Message-ID: Dear all, The founding chair of the board of the Public Interest Registry has published an Op-Ed today stating (emphasis added), "For those who care about the future of internet governance, the preservation of the .ORG domain should be a top priority. Not every piece of the internet should be privatized, not every domain put on the auction block. ICANN should block this sale and if does not, national governments, including the United States, should weigh in. This may be the last opportunity to preserve the internet that many of us still believe in." https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/473537-save-the-org-domain-and-all-it-symbolizes Given the author's credentials and knowledge of what the Public Interest Registry was intended to represent, I think this piece is very significant. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Sun Dec 8 17:44:26 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Dec 2019 17:44:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191208224427.7D1851041468@ary.qy> In article you write: >Dear John, >...have you used it yourselves ? > >https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm Informally, sort of. >...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a >specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and >For** ? Since it's only a page long, if you don't mind, I'll let you read it yourself. Keep in mind that those were the criteria that ICANN actually used to evaluate the applications, while the other appears to be some sort of press release. I have no idea where the assertion in the other document that .org was "by and for" non-profits came from. As everyone here certainly knows, .org has always been open non-profits and everyone else, and non-profits have never been a majority of the registrants. RFC 920, which defined the first set of TLDs didn't even mention non-profits, and the later RFC 1591 mentioned non-profits only as an example of entities that "may fit here." Non-profits are very welcome, but no more than anyone else. Until 2002 .com, .net, and .org were run together. Originally it was by SRI as a government contractor, then by Network Solutions, later Verisign, also as a government contractor, then in 1998 still by Verisign, with a government "cooperative agreement", a contract that doesn't pay anything. Before ISOC, .org had *always* been run exactly the same way as .com and .net and everyone thought that was normal. I see that phrase but it looks like even then people misunderstood what .org is, so I see no basis for it. R's, John From woody at pch.net Sun Dec 1 20:28:59 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:28:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Or given the numbers involved if the organisation buying a .org can show a 501c3 or equivalent certification that says it is a registered non profit in its country of origin give them the domain free > > Bill the domainers whatever you like I won’t lose any sleep over it Yes, exactly. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Sun Dec 8 18:08:09 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Dec 2019 18:08:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of >support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. Andrew responded to that question in the first live Q&A. To paraphase him, there are millions of registrants in .org, and no practical way to survey them due both to the way registries work and the need to do it in a reasonable time. (Registries are not allowed to contact registrants other than through the registrars.) He decided that the only survey anyone could do would really be a fake survey, and a fake survey is worse than no survey. I believe there's a recording of the call on the ISOC web site if you want to check that I summarized it correctly. There's been a great deal of noise on this list but I would be surprised if everyone who's ever posted had as many as 1000 .org registrations toal. That's 0.01% of the total. By the way, do you have any .org registrations? I checked and I have two, both of which have been sitting inactive autorenewing for 20 years. I must be .org's favorite kind of customer. R's, John From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 8 23:40:41 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 10:10:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> Message-ID: <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> >From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, > which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level > of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet > Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > */6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants./*/ > / > > /Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, > will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial > registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and > no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global > civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in > ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from > throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. > Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide > available evidence of support from across the global Internet community.// > / > > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline  > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine > > a écrit : >> >> In article >> > > >> you write: >> >> >> > >> >> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >> >> >> Dear John, >> ...have you used it yourselves ? >> >> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >> >> >> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if >> there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key >> words : */*_By_* and _*For*_/* ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> R's, >> John >> > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 01:49:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:49:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Parminder,There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002.At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder wrote: From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : In article you write: > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, John --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 01:59:57 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 06:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <502547910.10652746.1575874797448@mail.yahoo.com> Continued to previous message .... Please find hereunder some record describing that VeriSign has to pay "$5 million" to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IX. THE VERISIGN ENDOWMENT C40. The current .org registry agreement between ICANN and VeriSign, Inc., states: 5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date, [VeriSign] will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry. [VeriSign] agrees that such funds, once paid to ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's designee, and that [VeriSign] will have no ownership or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner in which they are used or disbursed. C41. Do you propose to seek to qualify to receive any funds from this endowment? C41.1. If so, describe in detail how you propose to use this endowment. Include the commitments you propose to make about the uses to which the endowment would be put. Explain why those uses are consistent with the smooth, stable transition and operation of the .org TLD for the benefit of current and future .org registrants. C41.2. If you propose to seek to qualify to receive the endowment funds, explain why you believe that your proposed use is consistent with the terms of the endowment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - << Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 11:49:45 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Hi Parminder,There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002.At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder wrote: From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : In article you write: > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, John --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 02:37:22 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 07:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <502547910.10652746.1575874797448@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <502547910.10652746.1575874797448@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <110450607.4802460.1575877042294@mail.yahoo.com> ...it was part of the Section #10 of "Criteria for Assessing Proposals"     https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...to comply with the qualification and use requirements of the VeriSign endowment and proposed use of the endowment" ....Imran On Monday, 9 December 2019, 12:01:26 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Continued to previous message .... Please find hereunder some record describing that VeriSign has to pay "$5 million" to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IX. THE VERISIGN ENDOWMENT C40. The current .org registry agreement between ICANN and VeriSign, Inc., states: 5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date, [VeriSign] will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry. [VeriSign] agrees that such funds, once paid to ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's designee, and that [VeriSign] will have no ownership or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner in which they are used or disbursed. C41. Do you propose to seek to qualify to receive any funds from this endowment? C41.1. If so, describe in detail how you propose to use this endowment. Include the commitments you propose to make about the uses to which the endowment would be put. Explain why those uses are consistent with the smooth, stable transition and operation of the .org TLD for the benefit of current and future .org registrants. C41.2. If you propose to seek to qualify to receive the endowment funds, explain why you believe that your proposed use is consistent with the terms of the endowment. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - << Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 11:49:45 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Hi Parminder,There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002.At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder wrote: From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : In article you write: > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, John --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 9 03:55:52 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 08:55:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> References: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi John, > there are millions of registrants in .org, and no > practical way to survey them due both to the way registries work and > the need to do it in a reasonable time. Sure. I accept that. But what, then, does the Board make of a petition being signed by 15,000 organizations and individuals, including some of the world's largest NGOs, and even statements opposing the sale signed by three of its own Chapters? My point is, there is clear opposition to the sale from the non-commercial community, but few cheerleaders. Bullet 6 states, "There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community." ISOC has provided no such support. All of the support I have seen for the sale has come from current or former ISOC and/or PIR board members, and people currently on ISOC's payroll, even on this mailing list. (By the way, I personally think people should be declaring such a conflict when they comment on this issue.) > By the way, do you have any .org registrations? With respect, what is the relevance of that question? I have no financial interest here. I have nothing to lose (directly) from the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital, and I have nothing to gain. Indirectly, of course, I have much to lose as a non-commercial user of the Domain Name System from the Domain Name System being more commercialized. As we all do. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 9, 2019 12:08 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article g4EijeilVgYyEfP_JjWD7fEDeRytFG_mXFk0TUOKDj2EMORaqOoEwKnQ-feQVeuOGQE3DvU2SJ6tXAs3EU5eQMQ-txrsnfxzqUHH_J88QdY=@ferdeline.com you write: > > > -=-=-=-=-=- > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of > > support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > Andrew responded to that question in the first live Q&A. > > To paraphase him, there are millions of registrants in .org, and no > practical way to survey them due both to the way registries work and > the need to do it in a reasonable time. (Registries are not allowed to > contact registrants other than through the registrars.) He decided > that the only survey anyone could do would really be a fake survey, > and a fake survey is worse than no survey. I believe there's a > recording of the call on the ISOC web site if you want to check that I > summarized it correctly. > > There's been a great deal of noise on this list but I would be > surprised if everyone who's ever posted had as many as 1000 .org > registrations toal. That's 0.01% of the total. > > By the way, do you have any .org registrations? I checked and I have > two, both of which have been sitting inactive autorenewing for 20 > years. I must be .org's favorite kind of customer. > > R's, > John From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 04:54:21 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 09:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> Message-ID: <1706524568.10681994.1575885261896@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Ayden,With reference to the ISOC community (Members & Chapters), I do not expect any opposition or arguments against the decision made by the CEO/BoT so far. Because of may reasons including their financial support interests. Regarding the question about support ISOC has in favor of sale of registry, ... Yes, they do not have it. But the question is this how much numbers of support and against are readable to ICANN, probably it depends on the Eyeglasses they worn......for example, at that time 2002, ISOC/PIR was not operating any registry but they used to show the support of subcontractor (partner) and mentioned their experience of  950,000 domains (.info and .vc). Similarly, Gartner has objection on the financial capability of the ISOC, but in comparison, the financial of subcontractors were mentioned. at that time, PIR was founded just few months ago, and practically ISOC or PIR both did not have any experience or support any registry at their own but but the report managed it ......mentioning following golden words in their favor: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6. PIR has a high level of support from .ORG registrants ISOC's established reputation allows PIR's approach to enjoy the support of a wide range of individuals and entities, including the leaders of many noncommercial entities both inside and outside the Internet space. These organizations and individuals are attracted by ISOC's heritage of responsiveness and support for noncommercial interests, and PIR's proposed governance and consensus-building mechanisms. This solid foundation will help enable .ORG to reach its full potential under new management. Details regarding these supportive organizations and individuals are found in Section VII ("Responsiveness to the Noncommercial Internet User Community").- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ".....These organizations and individuals are attracted by ISOC's heritage of responsiveness and support for noncommercial interests, and PIR's proposed governance and consensus-building mechanisms...." Do we see any so called "consensus-building mechanisms", made at the time of sale of registry..and any protection..of noncommercial interest? "..... ISOC's heritage of responsiveness and support for noncommercial interests...." They can manipulate the basic requirements and will response accordingly.  Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 13:56:30 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi John, > there are millions of registrants in .org, and no > practical way to survey them due both to the way registries work and > the need to do it in a reasonable time. Sure. I accept that. But what, then, does the Board make of a petition being signed by 15,000 organizations and individuals, including some of the world's largest NGOs, and even statements opposing the sale signed by three of its own Chapters? My point is, there is clear opposition to the sale from the non-commercial community, but few cheerleaders. Bullet 6 states, "There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community." ISOC has provided no such support. All of the support I have seen for the sale has come from current or former ISOC and/or PIR board members, and people currently on ISOC's payroll, even on this mailing list. (By the way, I personally think people should be declaring such a conflict when they comment on this issue.) > By the way, do you have any .org registrations? With respect, what is the relevance of that question? I have no financial interest here. I have nothing to lose (directly) from the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital, and I have nothing to gain. Indirectly, of course, I have much to lose as a non-commercial user of the Domain Name System from the Domain Name System being more commercialized. As we all do. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 9, 2019 12:08 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article g4EijeilVgYyEfP_JjWD7fEDeRytFG_mXFk0TUOKDj2EMORaqOoEwKnQ-feQVeuOGQE3DvU2SJ6tXAs3EU5eQMQ-txrsnfxzqUHH_J88QdY=@ferdeline.com you write: > > > -=-=-=-=-=- > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of > > support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > Andrew responded to that question in the first live Q&A. > > To paraphase him, there are millions of registrants in .org, and no > practical way to survey them due both to the way registries work and > the need to do it in a reasonable time. (Registries are not allowed to > contact registrants other than through the registrars.) He decided > that the only survey anyone could do would really be a fake survey, > and a fake survey is worse than no survey. I believe there's a > recording of the call on the ISOC web site if you want to check that I > summarized it correctly. > > There's been a great deal of noise on this list but I would be > surprised if everyone who's ever posted had as many as 1000 .org > registrations toal. That's 0.01% of the total. > > By the way, do you have any .org registrations? I checked and I have > two, both of which have been sitting inactive autorenewing for 20 > years. I must be .org's favorite kind of customer. > > R's, > John --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Mon Dec 9 06:26:20 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 03:26:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> Message-ID: > On Dec 9, 2019, at 12:55 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> By the way, do you have any .org registrations? > > With respect, what is the relevance of that question? I have no financial interest here. I have nothing to lose (directly) from the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital, and I have nothing to gain. > > Indirectly, of course, I have much to lose as a non-commercial user of the Domain Name System from the Domain Name System being more commercialized. As we all do. Agreed. I think we need to not lose sight of the fact that there are two classes harmed by the outcome of this transaction: 1) .ORG registrants, whose interests are being involuntarily converted to a private benefit, without compensation, and with future expense in both money and down-time, and 2) The entire Internet community, inasmuch as everyone else is also dependent upon the uptime and financial stability of nonprofits like Wikipedia, Mozilla, the Red Cross, etc. In an Internet that’s normally governed in a multistakeholder fashion, both of these constituencies would be well-represented. In a unilateral privatization of a public good, there is no multistakeholder voice representing the nonprofit and Internet constituencies. Most of us are in the first class, and all of us are in the second class. There is no one here who is not a stakeholder, there is no one here who will not suffer harm from the outcome, and there are only a handful of individuals (mostly not present on this list) who will profit from it. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 07:52:40 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:52:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comment below (inline)... Le lun. 9 déc. 2019 12:27 PM, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > > > > On Dec 9, 2019, at 12:55 AM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > > >> By the way, do you have any .org registrations? > > > > With respect, what is the relevance of that question? I have no > financial interest here. I have nothing to lose (directly) from the sale of > PIR to Ethos Capital, and I have nothing to gain. > > > > Indirectly, of course, I have much to lose as a non-commercial user of > the Domain Name System from the Domain Name System being more > commercialized. As we all do. > > > Agreed. I think we need to not lose sight of the fact that there are two > classes harmed by the outcome of this transaction: > > 1) .ORG registrants, whose interests are being involuntarily converted to > a private benefit, without compensation, and with future expense in both > money and down-time, and > > 2) The entire Internet community, inasmuch as everyone else is also > dependent upon the uptime and financial stability of nonprofits like > Wikipedia, Mozilla, the Red Cross, etc. > > In an Internet that’s normally governed in a multistakeholder fashion, > both of these constituencies would be well-represented. In a unilateral > privatization of a public good, there is no multistakeholder voice > representing the nonprofit and Internet constituencies. > > Most of us are in the first class, and all of us are in the second class. > There is no one here who is not a stakeholder, there is no one here who > will not suffer harm from the outcome, and there are only a handful of > individuals (mostly not present on this list) who will profit from it. > Thanks dear Bill, Well said ! Shalom, --sb. > -Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 9 08:29:02 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 18:59:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Thanks Imran, very useful.. So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... It cannot get more absurd that this.. parminder On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Hi Parminder, > There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was > leaving in 2002. > At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were > quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign > Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for > services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the > lowest bidder. > > No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, > VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity > building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder > wrote: > > > From those who know I request response to this question: > > Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from > other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and > if so how much? > > Thanks > > parminder > > On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, > which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level > of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet > Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > */6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants./*/ > / > > /Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, > will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial > registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and > no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global > civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in > ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from > throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. > Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide > available evidence of support from across the global Internet community.// > / > > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline  > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine > > a écrit : >> >> In article >> > > >> you write: >> >> >> > >> >> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >> >> >> Dear John, >> ...have you used it yourselves ? >> >> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >> >> >> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if >> there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key >> words : */*_By_* and _*For*_/* ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> R's, >> John >> > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 1 23:22:40 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 04:22:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Agree with Brett Parminder and others who suggest a statement might be a better output than questions. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Bill Woodcock" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Imran Ahmed Shah" ; "IGCaucus" Sent: 2/12/2019 12:28:59 PM Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell > > >> On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Or given the numbers involved if the organisation buying a .org can show a 501c3 or equivalent certification that says it is a registered non profit in its country of origin give them the domain free >> >> Bill the domainers whatever you like I won’t lose any sleep over it > >Yes, exactly. > > -Bill > From LB at lucabelli.net Mon Dec 9 13:32:59 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 11:32:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] China-Brazil Internet Governance Seminar Message-ID: <20191209113259.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.df1de0366f.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues (apologies for cross-posting) In case you are interested, tomorrow Tuesday 10 December at 10:00 Rio Time (GMT -3), at FGV Law School we will host the China-Brazil Internet Governance Seminar, organized in partnership with the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies (CACS). The link to live streaming will be shared tomorrow morning here https://twitter.com/BricsCyber At the end of the event, there will be the pre-launch of the book CyberBRICS: Mapping Cybersecurity Frameworks in the BRICS The event agenda is available below and here https://cyberbrics.info/event-china-brazilian-internet-governance-seminar/ Kind regards Luca The Rio de Janeiro Law School of Fundação Getúlio Vargas (DIREITO RIO) and CyberBRICS Project invite to the China-Brazil Internet Governance Seminar, organized in partnership with the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and the Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies (CACS). The event will take place on Tuesday, December 10th and will discuss Internet regulation, cybersecurity and digital markets, focusing on cooperation and synergies between Brazil and China. The seminar will be attended by Sheng Ronghua, Chinese Vice-Minister for Cyberspace, and Chen Te, Chairman of the Chinese Academy of Cybersecurity Studies, as well as Demi Getschko, President of the Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR (NIC.br) and specialists in digital governance, such as Professor Luca Belli, head of the CyberBRICS project at CTS/FGV and DaniloDoneda, member of theBoard of the National Data Protection Authority. At the end of the event, we'll have the pre-launch of the book CyberBRICS: Mapping Cybersecurity Frameworks in the BRICS and also receive the release of the book 2019 World Internet Conference Blue Book of the Chinese Bureau of Policy and Regulations. The event will last approximately three hours, starting at 10:00 in the hall of the 8th floor of FGV - Direito Rio, located at Praia de Botafogo, n° 190. Registration for attending the event must be done through the link. AGENDA: 10:00 - 10:10 → Opening 10:10 - 10:25 → Speech by Minister Sheng Ronghua, Vice Minister of Cyberspace Administration of China 10:25 - 10:40 → Keynote Speech Rodrigo Vianna, Director of Research and Development and International Affairs of FGV Law School 10:40 - 10:55 → Keynote Speech Yang Shuzhen, Director General of Bureau of Policy and Regulations, Cyberspace Administration of China and President of Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies 10:55 - 11:10 → Keynote Speech: The Cooperation of Internet between China and Brazil Demi Getschko, President of Internet Network Information Center of Brazil and member of Internet Hall of Fame 11:10 - 11:25 → Keynote Speech: Communication and cooperation to build the cybersecurity protection governance system Chen Te, Officers of Bureau of Cybersecurity, Cyberspace Administration of China 11:25 - 11:40 → Keynote Speech: Internet Governance towards CyberBRICS Luca Belli, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV 11:40 - 11:55 → Keynote Speech: The new Brazilian Data Protection Regime Danilo Doneda, member of the Board of the new Brazilian Data Protection Agency 11:55 - 12:10 → Keynote Speech: To cooperate with each other and develop the better future for China and Brazil Representatives of DiDi 12:10 - 12:25 → Keynote Speech: The Crisis on New Application Scenarios for False information in Brazil Ivana Bentes, Pro-Rector and Full Professor of ECo/UFRJ 12:25-12:40 → New Book Presentation I: 2019 World Internet Conference Blue Book Presented by officer from Bureau of Policy and Regulations, Cyberspace Administration of China 12:40-12:55 → New Book Presentation II: Mapping Cybersecurity Frameworks in the BRICS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 15:49:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 21:49:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Op-Ed from first board chair of Public Interest Registry calling for sale to be halted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, 2019-12-08 23:20 UTC+01:00, Ayden Férdeline : > Dear all, > > The founding chair of the board of the Public Interest Registry has > published an Op-Ed today stating (emphasis added), "For those who care about > the future of internet governance, the preservation of the .ORG domain > should be a top priority. Not every piece of the internet should be > privatized, not every domain put on the auction block. ICANN should block > this sale and if does not, national governments, including the United > States, should weigh in. This may be the last opportunity to preserve the > internet that many of us still believe in." > > https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/473537-save-the-org-domain-and-all-it-symbolizes > Thanks dear Ayden. It's worth reading ! Shalom, --sb. > Given the author's credentials and knowledge of what the Public Interest > Registry was intended to represent, I think this piece is very significant. > > Kind regards, > Ayden Férdeline -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 9 17:03:15 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 22:03:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Op-Ed from first board chair of Public Interest Registry calling for sale to be halted In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very much agree with you Ayden, ICANN should listen to the majority who are calling for total shutdown of this sales. Not everything that glitters is gold, On Sun, Dec 8, 2019, 10:21 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > The founding chair of the board of the Public Interest Registry has > published an Op-Ed today stating (emphasis added), *"For those who care > about the future of internet governance, the preservation of the .ORG > domain should be a top priority. Not every piece of the internet should be > privatized, not every domain put on the auction block. ICANN should block > this sale and if does not, national governments, including the United > States, should weigh in. This may be the last opportunity to preserve the > internet that many of us still believe in."* > > > https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/473537-save-the-org-domain-and-all-it-symbolizes > > Given the author's credentials and knowledge of what the Public Interest > Registry was intended to represent, I think this piece is very significant. > > Kind regards, > Ayden Férdeline > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Mon Dec 9 17:11:27 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:11:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> References: <20191208230809.5FAA41041635@ary.qy> Message-ID: <24046.50831.962676.572360@gargle.gargle.HOWL> On December 8, 2019 at 18:08 icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) wrote: > > There's been a great deal of noise on this list but I would be > surprised if everyone who's ever posted had as many as 1000 .org > registrations toal. That's 0.01% of the total. There are some of us who might question why anyone should have 1,000 .ORG registrations. But let's be honest, the whole TLD biz is just an income-maximizing effort (ok with a handful of exceptions) end of story full stop. Any resemblence to providing a legal or useful taxonomy is purely coincidental. > > By the way, do you have any .org registrations? I checked and I have > two, both of which have been sitting inactive autorenewing for 20 > years. I must be .org's favorite kind of customer. Full Disclosure: I do own OHSHIT.ORG > R's, > John > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From icggov at johnlevine.com Mon Dec 9 21:22:28 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 9 Dec 2019 21:22:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <24046.50831.962676.572360@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <20191210022229.5A3921048490@ary.qy> In article <24046.50831.962676.572360 at gargle.gargle.HOWL> you write: >On December 8, 2019 at 18:08 icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) wrote: > > > > There's been a great deal of noise on this list but I would be > > surprised if everyone who's ever posted had as many as 1000 .org > > registrations toal. That's 0.01% of the total. > >There are some of us who might question why anyone should have 1,000 >.ORG registrations. No, no, I meant the total number of .org domains registered by everyone who posts to this list is an immeasurably small fraction of the 10M total and not representative. Whatever the number is on the savedotorg petition, it is certainly a lot of high profile names, but still far too small to claim it's representative. Surveying large populations is hard. and particularly hard here because of the obstacles to even knowing who they all are. > > two, both of which have been sitting inactive autorenewing for 20 > > years. I must be .org's favorite kind of customer. > >Full Disclosure: I do own OHSHIT.ORG Well, for the two of us, that makes 3. R's, John From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Dec 10 08:04:00 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:04:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC Message-ID: ICANN's General Counsel has sent a letter to the Internet Society on 9 December pointing to inconsistencies in the Internet Society's public comments about the sale of .ORG and the importance of transparency, and their requests to ICANN for secrecy. (I am paraphrasing here, but I think that's an accurate summary.) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-sullivan-nevett-09dec19-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/news/blog/org-update Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 08:46:28 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:46:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1498846143.11374620.1575985588247@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Ayden, Thanks for sharing important letter of ICANN GA&C.  In this letter they are asking for transparency, which is most important course of action. However, the needful is to stop the deal, the reversal.  Best Regards  Imran Ahmed Shah  On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 18:04:26 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline wrote: ICANN's General Counsel has sent a letter to the Internet Society on 9 December pointing to inconsistencies in the Internet Society's public comments about the sale of .ORG and the importance of transparency, and their requests to ICANN for secrecy. (I am paraphrasing here, but I think that's an accurate summary.) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-sullivan-nevett-09dec19-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/news/blog/org-update Ayden Férdeline--- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Tue Dec 10 08:51:26 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:51:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC In-Reply-To: <1498846143.11374620.1575985588247@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1498846143.11374620.1575985588247@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This letter and their blog post is very good I think. They refer to the sale as a *proposed* sale no less than 8 times, call for transparency, and appear to recognize their public interest responsibility in ensuring that "the .ORG registry remains secure, reliable, and stable." Now for ISCO and PIR to respond with full disclosure. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:47 AM Imran Ahmed Shah < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Ayden, > Thanks for sharing important letter of ICANN GA&C. > > In this letter they are asking for transparency, which is most important > course of action. However, the needful is to stop the deal, the reversal. > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 18:04:26 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline < > ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: > > > ICANN's General Counsel has sent a letter to the Internet Society on 9 > December pointing to inconsistencies in the Internet Society's public > comments about the sale of .ORG and the importance of transparency, and > their requests to ICANN for secrecy. (I am paraphrasing here, but I think > that's an accurate summary.) > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-sullivan-nevett-09dec19-en.pdf > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/org-update > > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 09:02:32 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Anupam Agrawal (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:32:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC In-Reply-To: References: <1498846143.11374620.1575985588247@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is a good first step. Regards Anupam Agrawal Chair - Internet Society Kolkata Co-Founder - India Internet Foundation - *Improving Trust. Building Communities* On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 7:21 PM Brett Solomon wrote: > This letter and their blog post > is very good I think. They > refer to the sale as a *proposed* sale no less than 8 times, call for > transparency, and appear to recognize their public interest responsibility > in ensuring that "the .ORG registry remains secure, reliable, and stable." > Now for ISCO and PIR to respond with full disclosure. Brett > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express > , our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now > with a donation today > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:47 AM Imran Ahmed Shah < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear Ayden, >> Thanks for sharing important letter of ICANN GA&C. >> >> In this letter they are asking for transparency, which is most important >> course of action. However, the needful is to stop the deal, the reversal. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 18:04:26 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline < >> ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: >> >> >> ICANN's General Counsel has sent a letter to the Internet Society on 9 >> December pointing to inconsistencies in the Internet Society's public >> comments about the sale of .ORG and the importance of transparency, and >> their requests to ICANN for secrecy. (I am paraphrasing here, but I think >> that's an accurate summary.) >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-sullivan-nevett-09dec19-en.pdf >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/org-update >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 10 09:51:20 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:51:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now Message-ID: Dear all, As agreed we are running a poll to ascertain the views of all members of this list on how the IGC should respond regarding the .org sale. Check the threads " "[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale" and "[governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell" for more information. Due to the fast moving nature of the discussion, we request you participate by *COB 11 December*. Please fill out the survey by following this link and clicking on the green button. https://igcaucus.org/vote/ Best Sheetal -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 01:04:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: <774805793.7456862.1575266650352@mail.yahoo.com> I also agree for the issuance of strong statement form CS (initiated by IGC, endorsed by APC and other coalition partners, e.g. Access Now). I personally suggest that our statement should insist on 'reversal of the transaction/ deal', and 'not to discuss or address the mechanism of handling CS concerns by the commercial entity'. In order to stop current process of due-diligence, CS have to intervene immediately without waiting for findings of due-diligence process. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  Consultant/ Advisor TLDiansUrdu Internet Council On Monday, 2 December 2019, 09:23:42 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: Agree with Brett Parminder and others who suggest a statement might be a better output than questions. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Bill Woodcock" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Imran Ahmed Shah" ; "IGCaucus" Sent: 2/12/2019 12:28:59 PM Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell > > >>  On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>  Or given the numbers involved if the organisation buying a .org can show a 501c3 or equivalent certification that says it is a registered non profit in its country of origin give them the domain free >> >>  Bill the domainers whatever you like I won’t lose any sleep over it > >Yes, exactly. > >                                -Bill > --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Dec 10 09:59:18 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 14:59:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. Thanks! Ayden Férdeline -- To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Imran, very useful.. > > So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... > > It cannot get more absurd that this.. > > parminder > > On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002. >> At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. >> >> No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. >> >> Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder [](mailto:parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> >> From those who know I request response to this question: >> >> Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? >> >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >>> >> >> Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. >> >> 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. >> >> Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya [](mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : >>> >>>> In article <[CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com](mailto:CAJjTEvFXJ%2BZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p%2BO_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com)> you write: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >>>> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >>> >>> Dear John, >>> ...have you used it yourselves ? >>> >>>> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>> >>> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Shalom, >>> --sb. >>> >>>> R's, >>>> John >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >> List help: >> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 10:01:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:01:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Thanks for sharing this information. *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, *MEMBER* UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) UN BPF on Gender and Access UN IGF National Regional Initiatives UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee World Bank Open Data Working Team, Africa Open Data Collaborative Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force Linux Accra Users Group On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:04 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > ICANN's General Counsel has sent a letter to the Internet Society on 9 > December pointing to inconsistencies in the Internet Society's public > comments about the sale of .ORG and the importance of transparency, and > their requests to ICANN for secrecy. (I am paraphrasing here, but I think > that's an accurate summary.) > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-sullivan-nevett-09dec19-en.pdf > > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/org-update > > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Dec 10 10:02:34 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:02:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale Message-ID: Dear all, In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Is there support for this proposal? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 10 10:13:39 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:13:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, With thanks to Ayden, please note that there is a poll running which I've shared on a separate thread to confirm this is the route we want to take. Please consider participating in this poll and expressing your views (click on the link and then the green button): https://igcaucus.org/vote/ Best Sheetal. On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 14:59, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have > proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send > to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. > Thanks! > > Ayden Férdeline > -- > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping > Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would > lose 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and > transparent about major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Thanks Imran, very useful.. > > So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million > subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is > suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no > community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly > formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And > we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial > astuteness.... > > It cannot get more absurd that this.. > > parminder > On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was > leaving in 2002. > At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting > their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. > Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per > domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. > > No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, > VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building > and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder > wrote: > > > From those who know I request response to this question: > > Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from > other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so > how much? > > Thanks > > parminder > On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I > have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support > for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and > that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > *6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.* > > *Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be > a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not > have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization > can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will > likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for > particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and > noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD > should provide available evidence of support from across the global > Internet community.* > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article < > CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > > > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate > the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > > > Dear John, > ...have you used it yourselves ? > > https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is > a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By > and For** ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > R's, > John > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Tue Dec 10 10:15:19 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:15:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 to this letter. Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 9:59 AM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have > proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send > to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. > Thanks! > > Ayden Férdeline > -- > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping > Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would > lose 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and > transparent about major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Thanks Imran, very useful.. > > So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million > subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is > suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no > community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly > formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And > we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial > astuteness.... > > It cannot get more absurd that this.. > > parminder > On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was > leaving in 2002. > At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting > their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. > Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per > domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. > > No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, > VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building > and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder > wrote: > > > From those who know I request response to this question: > > Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from > other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so > how much? > > Thanks > > parminder > On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I > have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support > for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and > that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > *6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.* > > *Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be > a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not > have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization > can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will > likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for > particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and > noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD > should provide available evidence of support from across the global > Internet community.* > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article < > CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > > > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate > the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > > > Dear John, > ...have you used it yourselves ? > > https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is > a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By > and For** ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > R's, > John > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 10 10:17:06 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:47:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/12/19 8:32 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that > we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, > calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG > Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? yes, parminder > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Tue Dec 10 10:18:18 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 10:18:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ahm, 100% support. The tide is turning on this deal and IMHO we should help to support it being rejected. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM parminder wrote: > > On 10/12/19 8:32 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we > issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling > for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry > Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and > obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > > yes, parminder > > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pimienta at funredes.org Tue Dec 10 10:30:40 2019 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:30:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <582c72b5-c994-1749-2ddf-9337a39710a9@funredes.org> Just some tiny detailed though meaningful changes I would like to suggest : replacing "will" by "would" in all place referring to the consequences of the sale, so to clearly show that we take it as a conditional sale not as an irremediable decision. Plus some minor suggestions of wording, placed in different color with the part to be replaced in parenthesis to mean that what it as stake is TRUST. On 10/12/2019 10:59, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > /To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society// > / > > / > / > > /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement > that Ethos Capital intends to acquirethe assets of the Public Interest > Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, > .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called > off. // > / > > / > / > > /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private > entity investment firm (will) would significantly alter the Domain > Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only > remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in > serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other > top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial > objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times > overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, > could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave > ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role > in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over > PIR, ISOC would lose 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.// > / > > / > / > > /We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, > not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. // > / > > / > / > > /We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be > more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC > commit to publishing on its website all 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.// > / > > / > / > > /We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and > who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be > coherent with those values (open and transparent) when making (about) > major decisions. // > / > > / > / > > /This is a major decision that (will) would result in a significant > change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been > proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, > b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without > appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, > .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites > every day. // > / > > / > / > > /ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global > home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this > background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and > openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with > the values we (thought) trusted ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call > upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to > withdraw from selling PIR, so (and) to honor its charter.// > / > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 10:38:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:38:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agreed Brett, and I support this effort Ayden. Many thanks to all the people who are keeping up the pressure. Best, -Michael On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:18 PM Brett Solomon wrote: > Ahm, 100% support. The tide is turning on this deal and IMHO we should > help to support it being rejected. Brett > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express > , our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now > with a donation today > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:17 AM parminder > wrote: > >> >> On 10/12/19 8:32 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we >> issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling >> for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry >> Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and >> obligations to Ethos Capital. >> >> Is there support for this proposal? >> >> >> yes, parminder >> >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 10:39:00 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:39:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, This is perfect, *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, *MEMBER* UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) UN BPF on Gender and Access UN IGF National Regional Initiatives UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee World Bank Open Data Working Team, Africa Open Data Collaborative Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force Linux Accra Users Group On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:59 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have > proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send > to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. > Thanks! > > Ayden Férdeline > -- > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping > Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would > lose 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and > transparent about major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Thanks Imran, very useful.. > > So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million > subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is > suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no > community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly > formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And > we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial > astuteness.... > > It cannot get more absurd that this.. > > parminder > On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was > leaving in 2002. > At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting > their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. > Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per > domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. > > No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, > VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building > and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder > wrote: > > > From those who know I request response to this question: > > Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from > other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so > how much? > > Thanks > > parminder > On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I > have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support > for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and > that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > *6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.* > > *Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be > a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not > have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization > can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will > likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for > particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and > noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD > should provide available evidence of support from across the global > Internet community.* > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article < > CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > > > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate > the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > > > Dear John, > ...have you used it yourselves ? > > https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is > a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By > and For** ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > R's, > John > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 01:56:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:56:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> References: <3C2D73BD-DC44-4D6B-BB11-C1156CB2618E@pch.net> <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> Message-ID: <1780713347.7469071.1575269772445@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Bill, While comparing the revenue and income project of next 10 years, also add the yearly growth of domain registrations. Secondly, also note that....."PIR generated $101 million in revenue in 2018 and contributed nearly $50 million to Internet Society. It contributed $74 million to ISOC in 2017." "PIR paid over $33 millions to Afilias (in 2014)" to run the Registry Operations. Comparing with donuts.domains, if .Org operations are shifted from Afilias, the expense will reduce a lot. Think about 2-3 years ahead, if this investor exit and sells it to new bidder for $2b or $3b, should they calculate for setting up new prices for return of investment? However, question is not how the .Org is profitable for perceptive buyers, either it is ethos and any other future bidder, the question is the Public Interest vs Commercial Interest (or Non Public Interest). Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 2 December 2019, 03:49:28 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: Forwarded from another list: From: Bill Woodcock Date: December 1, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM GMT+1 Since I haven’t seen anyone else actually post this analysis yet, here goes: Ethos’ offered purchase price is $1.135B.  At that price, if they exercise the maximum 10% annual wholesale price increase, .ORG domains wind up at $26/year at the end of the ten-year period.  If Ethos pays the actual cost of registry and DNS services, without the subsidies ISOC currently receives, but continues at the same level of quality, they’d make a total of $318M in profit over the ten years, or 8.59% annualized return.  If they cut spending to the bone, using the crappiest available registry and DNS services and not caring how much downtime they had, they could increase their profit to $598M, or 9.71% annualized return. If they were to do a single 10% increase, at the beginning of the first year, they’d lose $355M if they maintained current service levels, or $55M if they axed spending.  If they maintained current prices, they’d lose $435M or $155M.  Private equity doesn’t plan to lose money. Therefore the suggestions from the public that the deal be allowed to proceed “if they agree not to raise prices” or “if they only raise prices 10%” simply won’t happen. The other implication of this is that if a non-profit were to buy from ISOC and maintain current prices, putting all available money toward ISOC and keeping nothing for themselves, they could only offer $700M, and that would be at the rate of $70M per year, “seller financed” at no interest.  ISOC is currently chewing up $45M/year, but once they’re no longer dependent on .ORG, they could drop a significant chunk of their spending that’s going toward maintaining those interests.  Let’s say that they could drop their spending to $30M.  That would leave $40M in excess profits each year going toward an endowment: At the end of the ten-year period, the endowment would stand at $626M, and interest from the endowment would be $50M/year.  Which is more than they’re receiving right now.  If they continued to just draw $30M/year, the endowment would continue to grow by $20M/year, making it safer and safer over time. So, I don’t think it works to ask Ethos to not raise prices, but (putting aside the fact that they’ve already signed an agreement with Ethos, which ICANN or the State of Pennsylvania would have to stop) ISOC could certainly do well (not _as_ well, but much better than they’re doing right now) and be completely out of the domain name business, while giving .ORG registrants a guarantee of no price increases, and having .ORG become fully non-profit, rather than the odd non-profit/for-profit hybrid it is right now.                                 -Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-6.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 93442 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 56472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 10:40:47 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:40:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 100% in support. *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, *MEMBER* UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) UN BPF on Gender and Access UN IGF National Regional Initiatives UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee World Bank Open Data Working Team, Africa Open Data Collaborative Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force Linux Accra Users Group On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we > issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling > for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry > Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and > obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 10:40:59 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 15:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and necessary...  Regards  Imran  On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. Thanks! Ayden Férdeline  -- To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off.  Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR.  We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions.  This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day.  ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder wrote: Thanks Imran, very useful.. So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... It cannot get more absurd that this.. parminder On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Hi Parminder, There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002. At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder wrote: From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : In article you write: > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, John --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Tue Dec 10 12:58:40 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:58:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support that too. Best, Niels On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > 100% in support.  > > > *WISDOM DONKOR* > President & CEO > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org > Tel: +233 20 812 8851 > Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk  > __________________________________________________ > Specialization: > E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security,  Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, * > * > _MEMBER_ > UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group > UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) > UN BPF on Gender and Access > UN IGF National Regional Initiatives > UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI > Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO > National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana   > ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, > Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition > Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee  > World Bank Open Data Working Team, > Africa Open Data Collaborative  > Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force  > Linux Accra Users Group > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From joly at punkcast.com Tue Dec 10 13:01:43 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:01:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Consolidation: What Lies Beneath the Application Layer? @ChathamHouse Message-ID: The title of this event is variable. It is also "Who Runs the Internet: Internet Consolidation and Control" however the topic is the same, either way. One wonders when Andrew Sullivan last slept in his own bed! ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 10 December 2019 at 18:00 UTC (1pm EST) Chatham House hosts a discussion 'Internet Consolidation: What Lies Beneath the Application Layer?' in London. In recent years, there has been a growing debate around the influence of a few large internet" New post on *ISOC LIVE NOTICEBOARD* [image: Livestream] On *Tuesday 10 December 2019* at *18:00 UTC* (1pm EST) *Chatham House * hosts a discussion '*Internet Consolidation: What Lies Beneath the Application Layer?* ' in London. In recent years, there has been a growing debate around the influence of a few large internet technology companies on the internet’s infrastructure and over the popular applications and social media platforms that we use every day. The internet which was once widely viewed as a collective platform for limitless, permissionless innovation, competition and growth, is now increasingly viewed as a consolidated environment dominated by a few. Such market dominance threatens to undermine the internet’s fundamental benefits as a distributed network in which no single entity has control. The panel will examine the risks of consolidation throughout the internet’s technology stack such as the impact on complex supply chains that support applications, including cloud provisions, ‘as a service’. It will also explore the potential benefits, for example, when building out essential infrastructure to support faster and cheaper internet services in developing economies, consolidation can create economies of scale that bring the resource-intensive building blocks of the internet economy within the reach of new start-ups and innovators. The panel will provide an interdisciplinary perspective exploring the relationship between consolidation and evolutions in the internet infrastructure as well as unpacking its policy implications. Participants *Andrew Sullivan*, President and CEO, Internet Society *Jennifer Cobbe*, Research Associate, Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge *Jesse Sowell*, Assistant Professor, Department of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University Chair: *Emily Taylo*r, Associate Fellow, International Security, Chatham House, Editor, Journal of Cyber Policy *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetconsolidation * *TWITTER: #InternetConsolidation *@ChathamHouse @SullivanISOC @jennifercobbe @jsowell78 #CHEvents *Permalink*: https://isoc.live/11567/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 13:57:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:57:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Le 10/12/2019 à 16:02, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that > we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, > calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG > Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? Dear Ayden, ...seconded ! With thanks ! Shalom, --sb. > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > [...] -- Best Regards !                          baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«/Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!/» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «/Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!/» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Dec 10 14:04:42 2019 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:04:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There should have been another option of "Halt the sell altogether". When you say "2) Call for a halt to the sale unless certain conditions are met", there are those who don't want any compromise. They want a complete halt. On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 17:51 Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > As agreed we are running a poll to ascertain the views of all members of > this list on how the IGC should respond regarding the .org sale. Check the > threads " "[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale" and "[governance] > PIR Case/or the .org sell" for more information. > > Due to the fast moving nature of the discussion, we request you > participate by *COB 11 December*. > > Please fill out the survey by following this link and clicking on the > green button. > > https://igcaucus.org/vote/ > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 14:21:58 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:21:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, for those who respond with "Don't send a letter", I think there need to be options on next steps or for them to say why they choose that option. I voted for that option because I think, as it has been said on this list by some members, that the letter should not be sent to ISOC but to ICANN or the Penn courts. But again, things have changed now that ICANN has sent a letter to ISOC and I think we should revise our stand on this. 2019-12-10 20:04 UTC+01:00, Mwendwa Kivuva : > There should have been another option of "Halt the sell altogether". > > When you say "2) Call for a halt to the sale unless certain conditions are > met", there are those who don't want any compromise. They want a complete > halt. > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 17:51 Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As agreed we are running a poll to ascertain the views of all members of >> this list on how the IGC should respond regarding the .org sale. Check >> the >> threads " "[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale" and >> "[governance] >> PIR Case/or the .org sell" for more information. >> >> Due to the fast moving nature of the discussion, we request you >> participate by *COB 11 December*. >> >> Please fill out the survey by following this link and clicking on the >> green button. >> >> https://igcaucus.org/vote/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From woody at pch.net Tue Dec 10 14:28:18 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:28:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > > There should have been another option of "Halt the sell altogether". > > When you say "2) Call for a halt to the sale unless certain conditions are met", there are those who don't want any compromise. They want a complete halt. Agreed. I think there are several possibilities: 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. I think (1) is a dangerous compromise. I’m not wild about (2), though I recognize that Network Solutions, and then Verisign, did a good job of operating .ORG; I don’t deny that. I’m very much in the (3) boat, and feel that the only moral way forward is self-governance for non-profits, without unjustified rent-extraction by for-profits. If there are people in favor of (4), I haven’t heard anything from them. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 14:49:20 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:49:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Le 10/12/2019 à 20:28, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: >> >> There should have been another option of "Halt the sell altogether". >> >> When you say "2) Call for a halt to the sale unless certain conditions are met", there are those who don't want any compromise. They want a complete halt. > Agreed. I think there are several possibilities: > > 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. > > 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. > > 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. > > 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG, by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN ; then should not be sold... The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" Thanks. Shalom, --sb. > I think (1) is a dangerous compromise. I’m not wild about (2), though I recognize that Network Solutions, and then Verisign, did a good job of operating .ORG; I don’t deny that. I’m very much in the (3) boat, and feel that the only moral way forward is self-governance for non-profits, without unjustified rent-extraction by for-profits. If there are people in favor of (4), I haven’t heard anything from them. > > -Bill > -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From woody at pch.net Tue Dec 10 19:58:04 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 21:58:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: >> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. >> >> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. >> >> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. >> >> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. > > 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? By (5) do you mean that ISOC continues operating .ORG via PIR? > 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control of .ORG? Or is that double-negative unintentional? > ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG, Mmmm, not exactly. PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain. That was on a three-year renewable delegation. There was never a grant of anything to anyone. > by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really… Their actions were dictated to them by ICANN. In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer. .ORG was the smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of view. ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation. So it was an action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was performed by them. These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be about putting information before people clearly. While I was there, I was not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. > ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold? Do you believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR? -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 02:07:55 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 07:07:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <774805793.7456862.1575266650352@mail.yahoo.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> <774805793.7456862.1575266650352@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Reading through the different dimensions of thoughts on the issue has been entertaining and enjoying the debate. Keep it up guys. Sal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 10 20:32:59 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 07:02:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B119376-3F21-4A8A-8614-AAE5AEE95024@itforchange.net> I agree options are inadequate. The most supported demand has been to halt the sale altogether with no questions or conditional sale. This is not there.... why? Parminder On December 11, 2019 12:34:42 AM GMT+05:30, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: >There should have been another option of "Halt the sell altogether". > >When you say "2) Call for a halt to the sale unless certain conditions >are >met", there are those who don't want any compromise. They want a >complete >halt. > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 17:51 Sheetal Kumar >wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As agreed we are running a poll to ascertain the views of all members >of >> this list on how the IGC should respond regarding the .org sale. >Check the >> threads " "[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale" and >"[governance] >> PIR Case/or the .org sell" for more information. >> >> Due to the fast moving nature of the discussion, we request you >> participate by *COB 11 December*. >> >> Please fill out the survey by following this link and clicking on the >> green button. >> >> https://igcaucus.org/vote/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 10 22:00:38 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 04:00:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00aaf7a1-2540-4694-6a8a-0614b7d9656d@gmail.com> Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le 11/12/2019 à 01:58, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: >>> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. >>> >>> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. >>> >>> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. >>> >>> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. >> 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR > I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? Dear Bill, Thanks for responding. Maybe ! But each carries different expectations... > By (5) do you mean that ISOC continues operating .ORG via PIR? ...no, that's your point (4) and i consider that the PIR can live without InternetSociety.ORG ; then it's an *unsalable* entity because it was funded through a grant, with a clear purpose and MUST stay a public good. So the rational of a separated point (5). >> 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org > Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control of .ORG? Or is that double-negative unintentional? Thanks for have pointing this typos to my attention :-) Please my first intent was to write *for-profit* ; but now i should admit... 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any for-profit Org 7) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org >> ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG, > Mmmm, not exactly. PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain. That was on a three-year renewable delegation. There was never a grant of anything to anyone. ...i'm not sure if i've understood it well, but that's quite something i have read here [1][2][3]. ~°~ "[...] *A. _BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT_* The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net, and.org registries) provides (in Section 23 ) that the Agreement will expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) _*separates legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement*_, or May 10, 2001. If that separation occurs within the meaning of Section 23, the Registry Agreement is automatically extended for an additional four years, or until 10 November 2007. _*The original purpose of this provision was to create an incentive for the separation of ownership of NSI's registry and registrar businesses*_, because that was thought likely to be helpful in introducing and encouraging registrar competition. _*The main steps taken to encourage competition*_ were the agreements by NSI to (1) create the Shared Registration System ("SRS"), and (2) to open that system to all ICANN-accredited registrars. _*In addition, to ensure that the NSI registrar business did not have any competitive advantage because of its affiliation with the registry operator*_, NSI was required in Section 21 of the Agreement (3) _*to provide all accredited registrars with equal access*_ to the SRS, and (4) to create an operational firewall between its registry business and its registrar business _*that prevented any information flow from its registry business to its registrar business that was not equally available to all competitive registrars*_. [...] *D. _THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS_* The proposed amendments can be summarized as follows: 1. The existing Registry Agreement covering .com, .net and _*.org would be split into three separate Agreements, one for each registry*_. 2. The _*.org Registry*_ Agreement would adopt the form of the registry agreements that will be entered into by _*the new global*_ TLD _*registry operators*_. _*The term of the .org Registry Agreement would be shortened by almost one year to 31 December 2002*_, at which time VeriSign would permanently relinquish its right to operate the .org registry, *and _an appropriate sponsoring organization representing non-commercial organizations_ would be sought (through some procedure yet to be determined) to assume the operation of the registry*. In addition, *VeriSign _would establish an endowment of $5 million for the purpose of funding the reasonable operating expenses_ of a _global registry_ for the _specific use of non-profit organizations_*, and *would _make global resolution resources available to the operator of the .org registry_ for _no charge for one year and on terms to be determined_ thereafter*, for so long as it operates the .com registry. *The _net result_ of this would be a _.org registry returned_, after some _appropriate transition period_, to its _originally intended function_ as a _registry operated by and for non-profit organizations_*. [...]" __ [1]: [2]: [3]: ~°~ >> by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN > Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really… Their actions were dictated to them by ICANN. In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer. .ORG was the smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of view. ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation. So it was an action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was performed by them. ...it's something like that, fortunately archived here [1][2][3]. > These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be about putting information before people clearly. While I was there, I was not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. ...i get your point thanks, no worry :-) >> ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" > So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold? Yes ! > Do you believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR? Again...problem : InternetSociety.ORG have already decided to leave the domain name business :-/ ...so, i can not force it to continue to benefit to the grant, where it's possible to retart the 2002 process with now a membership-based non-profit Org with .ORG's registrants as members (cPIR - common Public Interest Registry). Please have a look below (/the last five points propose a base for the cPIR/)... •—• |• Stop/Pause/Withdraw that *privatized* 'public interest' transaction; and | |• Include InternetSociety.ORG's constituencies in future decision-making | processes; or before | |• InternetSociety.ORG MUST add into the deal a condition which could | permit to maintain the relationship between theNew.ORG and the | community of users|registrants. | How to do it ? | Again, by co-signing a document of public commitment to serve the | community of registrants at least as the PIR.ORG was serving. Co-signers : | TheNew.ORG (within owner), InternetSociety.ORG and the Community of | registrants. ICANN.ORG ? | | Then (first proposed by Christian @), |• Create a membership-based non-profit Org, with .ORG's registrants as | automatic members ; |• The policies used to operate the .ORG registry shall be discussed and | adopted by the members, in consensus-based approach, in respect to | the fundamental principles (ToBeDefined—Steve) |• The actual operator of the .ORG registry shall continue its operations | during a transition period of one year (2020) ; |• The transition period shall serve to structure the cPIR (commons Public | Internet Registry) |• The cPIR shall begin to operate the .ORG registry at the start of the | second year (2021). •—• Hope this clarifies something. Thanks. Shalom, --sb. > > -Bill > -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mike at palage.com Tue Dec 10 22:37:07 2019 From: mike at palage.com (Michael Palage) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 22:37:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011e01d5afd4$44b29720$ce17c560$@palage.com> Hello Bill, A little legal clarification. The original Registry Contract with NSI/VeriSign (1999) bundled all three TLDs together. When VRSN was given a presumptive renewal in connection with .COM, .NET and .ORG were split off into separate registry agreements. VRSN was not able to bid on .ORG, but it was able to bid on and then win the .NET RFP which is now a presumptive renewal contract. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:58 PM To: Sylvain BAYA Cc: governance Subject: Re: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: >> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. >> >> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. >> >> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. >> >> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. > > 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? By (5) do you mean that ISOC continues operating .ORG via PIR? > 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control of .ORG? Or is that double-negative unintentional? > ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG, Mmmm, not exactly. PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain. That was on a three-year renewable delegation. There was never a grant of anything to anyone. > by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really… Their actions were dictated to them by ICANN. In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer. .ORG was the smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of view. ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation. So it was an action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was performed by them. These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be about putting information before people clearly. While I was there, I was not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. > ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold? Do you believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR? -Bill From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 11 01:57:34 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:27:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> agree, parminder On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and > necessary...  > > Regards  > > Imran  > > On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I > have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could > potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key > changes are in red. Thanks! > > Ayden Férdeline  > -- > > /To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society// > / > > / > / > > /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement > that Ethos Capital intends to acquirethe assets of the Public Interest > Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, > .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called > off. // > / > > / > / > > /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private > entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System > and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining > non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a > counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, > and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains > are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While > the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can > also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights > implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do > what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of > doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. > It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose > 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.// > / > > / > / > > /We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, > not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. // > / > > / > / > > /We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be > more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC > commit to publishing on its website all 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.// > / > > / > / > > /We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and > who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be > open and transparent about major decisions. // > / > > / > / > > /This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, > for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) > without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without > consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate > safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. // > / > > / > / > > /ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global > home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this > background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and > openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with > the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to > withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from > selling PIR, and to honor its charter.// > / > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> Thanks Imran, very useful.. >> >> So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million >> subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community >> is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- >> with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off >> to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment >> its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's >> financial astuteness.... >> >> It cannot get more absurd that this.. >> >> parminder >> >> On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign >>> was leaving in 2002. >>> At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were >>> quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on >>> VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their >>> fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was >>> not the lowest bidder. >>> >>> No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from >>> ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for >>> capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million >>> domain names. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> From those who know I request response to this question: >>> >>> Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart >>> from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay >>> anything, and if so how much? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>> >>> Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, >>> which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a >>> "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the >>> Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over >>> other bidders. >>> >>> */6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants./* >>> >>> /Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, >>> particularly those actually using .org domain names for >>> noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the >>> proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about >>> policy and management, and no single organization can fully >>> encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely >>> be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for >>> particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and >>> noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org >>> TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the >>> global Internet community./ >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline  >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine >>> > a écrit : >>>> >>>> In article >>>> >>> > >>>> you write: >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >>>> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear John, >>>> ...have you used it yourselves ? >>>> >>>> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if >>>> there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key >>>> words : */*_By_* and _*For*_/* ? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Shalom, >>>> --sb. >>>> >>>> >>>> R's, >>>> John >>>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 09:23:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:23:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN delays approval of .org acquisition Message-ID: Dear all, Domain incite has just noticed that ICANN delayed the approval of the .org acquisition. This looks like a great follow up to mondays letter to PIR asking for more transparency on the deal! http://domainincite.com/25056-icann-delays-approval-of-org-acquisition best, -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 11 09:50:20 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 14:50:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: <011e01d5afd4$44b29720$ce17c560$@palage.com> References: <011e01d5afd4$44b29720$ce17c560$@palage.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for the engagement on the poll. You are right, there are many options that could have been proposed and it's too late now to change the poll. The aim was to provide some clarity on a way forward on the main options, and not to create confusion by providing all possible options. Apologies if you feel the most important options weren't captured but hopefully it hasn't created more confusion. On the results, there is more support for calling for a halt then there is for calling just for transparency, about double the support in fact. There are 39 complete responses in total. So, I suggest we move forward with discussing the text already suggested on the other thread by Ayden, which, as it turns out, calls for a complete halt to the sale. If you want to make changes, please suggest so there. I'll propose a timeframe and way forward on that thread. Best Sheetal. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 03:37, Michael Palage wrote: > Hello Bill, > > A little legal clarification. The original Registry Contract with > NSI/VeriSign (1999) bundled all three TLDs together. When VRSN was given a > presumptive renewal in connection with .COM, .NET and .ORG were split off > into separate registry agreements. VRSN was not able to bid on .ORG, but it > was able to bid on and then win the .NET RFP which is now a presumptive > renewal contract. > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:58 PM > To: Sylvain BAYA > Cc: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now > > > > > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: > >> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if > Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. > >> > >> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but > not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. > >> > >> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, > provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. > >> > >> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of > .ORG beneficiary. > > > > 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR > > I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? By (5) do you mean that ISOC > continues operating .ORG via PIR? > > > 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by > any non-profit Org > > Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control > of .ORG? Or is that double-negative unintentional? > > > ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to > InternetSociety.ORG, > > Mmmm, not exactly. PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to > receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain. That was on a > three-year renewable delegation. There was never a grant of anything to > anyone. > > > by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN > > Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really… Their actions were > dictated to them by ICANN. In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained > presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer. .ORG was the > smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of > view. ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation. So it was an > action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by > Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was > performed by them. > > These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be > argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be > about putting information before people clearly. While I was there, I was > not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so > if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. > > > ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill > mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" > > So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold? Do you > believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR? > > -Bill > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 11 10:04:02 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:04:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, this is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase pressure! Please provide your views on the following text by *COP tomorrow, 12 December*. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. In particular, you may want to consider the following questions 1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, can you provide a rationale and some suggested text? 2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you provide a rationale? Thank you! Best Sheetal. *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society* *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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.* *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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.* *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. * *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. * *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder wrote: > agree, parminder > On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and > necessary... > > Regards > > Imran > > On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have > proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send > to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. > Thanks! > > Ayden Férdeline > -- > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping > Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would > lose 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and > transparent about major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Thanks Imran, very useful.. > > So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million > subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is > suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no > community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly > formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And > we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial > astuteness.... > > It cannot get more absurd that this.. > > parminder > On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Hi Parminder, > There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was > leaving in 2002. > At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting > their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. > Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per > domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. > > No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, > VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building > and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. > > Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder > wrote: > > > From those who know I request response to this question: > > Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from > other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so > how much? > > Thanks > > parminder > On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > > Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I > have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support > for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and > that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. > > *6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.* > > *Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly > those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be > a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not > have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization > can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will > likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for > particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and > noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD > should provide available evidence of support from across the global > Internet community.* > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article < > CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you > write: > > > > > It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate > the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: > > > Dear John, > ...have you used it yourselves ? > > https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > > ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is > a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By > and For** ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > R's, > John > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 10:09:58 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:09:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191208224427.7D1851041468@ary.qy> References: <20191208224427.7D1851041468@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 11:44 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article you write: > >Dear John, > >...have you used it yourselves ? > > > >https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > Informally, sort of. Dear John (Secretary, the InternetSociety.ORG's BoT), Thanks for taking time to respond to my questions. I really appreciate. ...please, can you share your criteria ; as ICANN had shared its in 2002 ? > >...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a > >specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and > >For** ? > > Since it's only a page long, if you don't mind, I'll let you read it > yourself. Brother, is it about reading ? ...i'll not be surprised to see you suddently telling us that what matter is *only* the contract/agreement [1][2] between the PIR and ICANN. __ [1]: < https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm > [2]: > Keep in mind that those were the criteria that ICANN > actually used to evaluate the applications, while the other appears to > be some sort of press release. ...i'll, preferably, keep in mind that : it looks as you want to direct our attention to a document, you think you can control better. But, you should keep in mind that we have also already studied it... ...even though, the following criteria are sufficients : •— • Differenciation from TLDs intended for commercial purposes ; un order to attract registrations from the global non-commercial community : criterion 4 • Registry's operation responsiveness & Support to needs/concerns/views of the non-commercial Internet User Community (openness, transparence, participatotory un governance procès ses including Bylaws reviews: criterion 5 • Demonstrate (not easy;try anyway) a Level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants particularly those *ctually* using it for non-commercial purposes : criterion 6 • Type/Quality/Cost of the Registry Service. The quality of service commitment proposed should match or improve the performance levels of the current .ORG Registry. Affordability is important for many *present* and *future* .ORG registrants. A signifiant consideration to initiale ans renewal registration (and other service) prices. Charged fees to registrars : as low as feasible consistent with good QoS : criterion 7 • ...smoth/stable transition & operation of the .ORG TLD for the *benefit* of *current* & *future* .ORG registrants : criterion 10 •— > I have no idea where the assertion in the other document that .org was > > "by and for" non-profits came from. As everyone here certainly knows, > > .org has always been open non-profits and everyone else, and > non-profits have never been a majority of the registrants. RFC 920, > which defined the first set of TLDs didn't even mention non-profits, > and the later RFC 1591 mentioned non-profits only as an example of > entities that "may fit here." Non-profits are very welcome, but no > more than anyone else. > > Until 2002 .com, .net, and .org were run together. Originally it was > by SRI as a government contractor, then by Network Solutions, later > Verisign, also as a government contractor, then in 1998 still by > Verisign, ...oh ! la belle époque :'-( I also know 'normal' persons who want to back to that 'wonderful' time where they were allowed to sell human beings... That's human's complexity ! ...most of the time unhuman :'-( > with a government "cooperative agreement", a contract that > doesn't pay anything. Before ISOC, .org had *always* been run exactly > the same way as .com and .net and everyone thought that was normal. ..."everyone" including 'non-commercial' and ICANN's Board members ? > I see that phrase but it looks like even then people misunderstood > what .org is, OK, "people misunderstood what .ORG is" and you not. What's .ORG ? (i)...what the RFC writers have decided then changed (ii)...what the users/industry did with it (iii)...both of the above (iv)...none of the above > so I see no basis for it. ...your understanding of the situation sounds like if it puts the Internet(Society.ORG) in real danger. A 'Trust Anchor' is broken, and no one from the BoT to take care :'-( We should ask for a *Referendum* to allow the InternetSociety.ORG's members to call the entire BoT to immediately step down. Shalom, --sb. > > R's, > John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 10:57:45 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208224427.7D1851041468@ary.qy> Message-ID: <319962440.12029890.1576079865441@mail.yahoo.com> Just to add comments on last lines,  Step down after reversal, to first step in re-establishment of broken trust.  Regards  Imran  On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, 20:11:19 GMT+5, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 11:44 PM, John Levine a écrit : > > In article you write: > >Dear John, > >...have you used it yourselves ? > > > >https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > Informally, sort of. Dear John (Secretary, the InternetSociety.ORG's BoT), Thanks for taking time to respond to my questions. I really appreciate. ...please, can you share your criteria ; as ICANN had shared its in 2002 ? > >...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a > >specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By and > >For** ? > > Since it's only a page long, if you don't mind, I'll let you read it > yourself.  Brother, is it about reading ?  ...i'll not be surprised to see you suddently telling us that what matter is *only* the contract/agreement [1][2] between the PIR and ICANN. __ [1]: [2]:  > Keep in mind that those were the criteria that ICANN > actually used to evaluate the applications, while the other appears to > be some sort of press release. ...i'll, preferably, keep in mind that : it looks as you want to direct our attention to a document, you think you can control better. But, you should keep in mind that we have also already studied it... ...even though, the following criteria are sufficients :  •— • Differenciation from TLDs intended for commercial purposes ; un order to attract registrations from the global non-commercial community : criterion 4 • Registry's operation responsiveness & Support to needs/concerns/views of the non-commercial Internet User Community (openness, transparence, participatotory un governance procès ses including Bylaws reviews: criterion 5 • Demonstrate (not easy;try anyway) a Level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants particularly those *ctually* using it for non-commercial purposes : criterion 6 • Type/Quality/Cost of the Registry Service. The quality of service commitment proposed should match or improve the performance levels of the current .ORG Registry. Affordability is important for many *present* and *future* .ORG registrants. A signifiant consideration to initiale ans renewal registration (and other service) prices. Charged fees to registrars : as low as feasible consistent with good QoS : criterion 7 • ...smoth/stable transition & operation of the .ORG TLD for the *benefit* of *current* & *future* .ORG registrants : criterion 10 •— > I have no idea where the assertion in the other document that .org was > > "by and for" non-profits came from.  As everyone here certainly knows, > > .org has always been open non-profits and everyone else, and > non-profits have never been a majority of the registrants.  RFC 920, > which defined the first set of TLDs didn't even mention non-profits, > and the later RFC 1591 mentioned non-profits only as an example of > entities that "may fit here."  Non-profits are very welcome, but no > more than anyone else. > > Until 2002 .com, .net, and .org were run together.  Originally it was > by SRI as a government contractor, then by Network Solutions, later > Verisign, also as a government contractor, then in 1998 still by > Verisign, ...oh ! la belle époque :'-( I also know 'normal' persons who want to back to that 'wonderful' time where they were allowed to sell human beings... That's human's complexity ! ...most of the time unhuman :'-( > with a government "cooperative agreement", a contract that > doesn't pay anything.  Before ISOC, .org had *always* been run exactly > the same way as .com and .net and everyone thought that was normal. ..."everyone" including 'non-commercial' and ICANN's Board members ? > I see that phrase but it looks like even then people misunderstood > what .org is, OK, "people misunderstood what .ORG is" and you not. What's .ORG ? (i)...what the RFC writers have decided then changed (ii)...what the users/industry did with it (iii)...both of the above (iv)...none of the above > so I see no basis for it. ...your understanding of the situation sounds like if it puts the Internet(Society.ORG) in real danger. A 'Trust Anchor' is broken, and no one from the BoT to take care :'-( We should ask for a *Referendum* to allow the InternetSociety.ORG's members to call the entire BoT to immediately step down. Shalom, --sb. > > R's, > John --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 11:00:29 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] ICANN delays approval of .org acquisition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1399606914.12044651.1576080029293@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Bruna, It is almost same which has already been shared yesterday. However, in ICANN Blog, important is the following comments : "..... ICANN will thoroughly evaluate the responses and then ICANN has 30 additional days to provide or withhold its consent to the request. The Registry Agreement requires a standard of reasonableness for ICANN’s determination......"  Regards  Imran Ahmed Shah  On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, 19:24:20 GMT+5, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: Dear all,  Domain incite has just noticed that ICANN delayed the approval of the .org acquisition. This looks like a great follow up to mondays letter to PIR asking for more transparency on the deal!  http://domainincite.com/25056-icann-delays-approval-of-org-acquisition best, -- Bruna Martins dos Santos  Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 02:29:52 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:59:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <1780713347.7469071.1575269772445@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3C2D73BD-DC44-4D6B-BB11-C1156CB2618E@pch.net> <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> <1780713347.7469071.1575269772445@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1D6BE02F-6868-4BE8-83DC-45CD24234994@hserus.net> Do you have some data points for the assumption that operating the registry at Donuts will reduce the costs by “a lot”? Domain registrations in org aren’t growing all that fast - .org is at 10 million domains – lower than ccTLDs like uk, tk and de (https://www.verisign.com/en_IN/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml?section=tlds).  If you limit your search to actual non profits registering .org names that will show at most a fractional increase year on year. From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 12:26 PM To: IGCaucus , Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell Dear Bill, While comparing the revenue and income project of next 10 years, also add the yearly growth of domain registrations. Secondly, also note that....."PIR generated $101 million in revenue in 2018 and contributed nearly $50 million to Internet Society. It contributed $74 million to ISOC in 2017." "PIR paid over $33 millions to Afilias (in 2014)" to run the Registry Operations. Comparing with donuts.domains, if .Org operations are shifted from Afilias, the expense will reduce a lot. Think about 2-3 years ahead, if this investor exit and sells it to new bidder for $2b or $3b, should they calculate for setting up new prices for return of investment? However, question is not how the .Org is profitable for perceptive buyers, either it is ethos and any other future bidder, the question is the Public Interest vs Commercial Interest (or Non Public Interest). Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 2 December 2019, 03:49:28 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: Forwarded from another list: From: Bill Woodcock Date: December 1, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM GMT+1 Since I haven’t seen anyone else actually post this analysis yet, here goes: Ethos’ offered purchase price is $1.135B. At that price, if they exercise the maximum 10% annual wholesale price increase, .ORG domains wind up at $26/year at the end of the ten-year period. If Ethos pays the actual cost of registry and DNS services, without the subsidies ISOC currently receives, but continues at the same level of quality, they’d make a total of $318M in profit over the ten years, or 8.59% annualized return. If they cut spending to the bone, using the crappiest available registry and DNS services and not caring how much downtime they had, they could increase their profit to $598M, or 9.71% annualized return. If they were to do a single 10% increase, at the beginning of the first year, they’d lose $355M if they maintained current service levels, or $55M if they axed spending. If they maintained current prices, they’d lose $435M or $155M. Private equity doesn’t plan to lose money. Therefore the suggestions from the public that the deal be allowed to proceed “if they agree not to raise prices” or “if they only raise prices 10%” simply won’t happen. The other implication of this is that if a non-profit were to buy from ISOC and maintain current prices, putting all available money toward ISOC and keeping nothing for themselves, they could only offer $700M, and that would be at the rate of $70M per year, “seller financed” at no interest. ISOC is currently chewing up $45M/year, but once they’re no longer dependent on .ORG, they could drop a significant chunk of their spending that’s going toward maintaining those interests. Let’s say that they could drop their spending to $30M. That would leave $40M in excess profits each year going toward an endowment: At the end of the ten-year period, the endowment would stand at $626M, and interest from the endowment would be $50M/year. Which is more than they’re receiving right now. If they continued to just draw $30M/year, the endowment would continue to grow by $20M/year, making it safer and safer over time. So, I don’t think it works to ask Ethos to not raise prices, but (putting aside the fact that they’ve already signed an agreement with Ethos, which ICANN or the State of Pennsylvania would have to stop) ISOC could certainly do well (not _as_ well, but much better than they’re doing right now) and be completely out of the domain name business, while giving .ORG registrants a guarantee of no price increases, and having .ORG become fully non-profit, rather than the odd non-profit/for-profit hybrid it is right now. -Bill --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 93443 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 56473 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 11:04:30 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: <011e01d5afd4$44b29720$ce17c560$@palage.com> Message-ID: <853502847.6252322.1576080270737@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sheetal,  Many thanks for the acceptance of responses to proceed with the option to "halt the sale deal".  Best Regards  Imran Ahmed Shah  On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, 19:51:25 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, Thanks for the engagement on the poll. You are right, there are many options that could have been proposed and it's too late now to change the poll. The aim was to provide some clarity on a way forward on the main options, and not to create confusion by providing all possible options. Apologies if you feel the most important options weren't captured but hopefully it hasn't created more confusion. On the results, there is more support for calling for a halt then there is for calling just for transparency, about double the support in fact. There are 39 complete responses in total. So, I suggest we move forward with discussing the text already suggested on the other thread by Ayden, which, as it turns out, calls for a complete halt to the sale. If you want to make changes, please suggest so there. I'll propose a timeframe and way forward on that thread. BestSheetal. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 03:37, Michael Palage wrote: Hello Bill, A little legal clarification.  The original Registry Contract with NSI/VeriSign (1999) bundled all three TLDs together. When VRSN was given a presumptive renewal in connection with .COM, .NET and .ORG were split off into separate registry agreements. VRSN was not able to bid on .ORG, but it was able to bid on and then win the .NET RFP which is now a presumptive renewal contract.  -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:58 PM To: Sylvain BAYA Cc: governance Subject: Re: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: >> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. >> >> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that deal. >> >> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. >> >> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of .ORG beneficiary. > > 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar?  By (5) do you mean that ISOC continues operating .ORG via PIR? > 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by any non-profit Org Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit control of .ORG?  Or is that double-negative unintentional? > ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to InternetSociety.ORG, Mmmm, not exactly.  PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain.  That was on a three-year renewable delegation.  There was never a grant of anything to anyone. > by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really…  Their actions were dictated to them by ICANN.  In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer.  .ORG was the smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of view.  ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation.  So it was an action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was performed by them. These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be about putting information before people clearly.  While I was there, I was not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. > ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold?  Do you believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR?                                 -Bill --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 12:30:28 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Lee W McKnight (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:30:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <20191208201944.8F0441040266@ary.qy> <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: I suggest a slight tweak to these sentences: However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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 Lee explains his rationale for the proposed modifiers/qualifiers: In ISOC, the mission has always been to 'keep the Internet going.' The mechanisms have recently changed, with the establishment of the IETF as an LLC owned by ISOC, and led at arms length by its own board, by-laws and procedures. But the ISOC mission has not changed. Which also kind of expains...how they walked into this regrettable mess. Since helping keep the Internet going and growing with a billion dollar endowment must feel a lot easier than without it. Anyway, obviously most folks worldwide practically speaking are far more familiar with - the web- and its standards which are in folks' faces/eyeballs every day; vs the plumbing/inter-networking protocols of IETF. But the web without the IETF = CERN. Very. Boring. Well, except for finding the God Particle. So anyway, my 3 cents. And of course, no need for IGC to accept the suggested edits. See: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis-01.html#I-D.ietf-iasa2-trust-update See also the backstory/mid-90s history per Vint: https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-of-the-internet/ietf-internet-society/ ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of Sheetal Kumar Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 10:04:02 AM To: parminder Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah; Ayden F��rdeline; governance at lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Dear all, The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, this is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase pressure! Please provide your views on the following text by COP tomorrow, 12 December. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. In particular, you may want to consider the following questions 1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, can you provide a rationale and some suggested text? 2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you provide a rationale? Thank you! Best Sheetal. To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC��s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder > wrote: agree, parminder On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and necessary... Regards Imran On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden F��rdeline wrote: Dear all, In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. Thanks! Ayden F��rdeline -- To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC��s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ Original Message �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder wrote: Thanks Imran, very useful.. So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... It cannot get more absurd that this.. parminder On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Hi Parminder, There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002. At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder wrote: From those who know I request response to this question: Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? Thanks parminder On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden F��rdeline wrote: Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. Best wishes, Ayden F��rdeline �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ Original Message �\�\�\�\�\�\�\ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le dim. 8 d��c. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine > a ��crit : In article > you write: >> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: Dear John, ...have you used it yourselves ? https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. R's, John --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 11 13:15:38 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:15:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for all the friendly amendments. I want to make sure that I have captured all of them. Please find below attached an updated version of our proposed statement to send to the ISOC Board. I would also suggest that we affix a short paragraph, to the very end, explaining who the Internet Governance Caucus is and what we represent. I will send some proposed language under separate cover so we can wordsmith this separately. This, I hope, will address the comment asking who 'we' is in the context of this letter. Thank you again. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ========== To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. About the Internet Governance Caucus [Description to go here] ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:04 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, this is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase pressure! > > Please provide your views on the following text by COP tomorrow, 12 December. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. > > In particular, you may want to consider the following questions > > 1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, can you provide a rationale and some suggested text? > 2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you provide a rationale? > > Thank you! > > Best > Sheetal. > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. > > We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. > > We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. > > This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. > > ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder wrote: > >> agree, parminder >> >> On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and necessary... >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Imran >>> >>> On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline [](mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com) wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. Thanks! >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> -- >>> >>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>> >>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. >>> >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. >>> >>> We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >>> >>> We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >>> >>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. >>> >>> This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >>> >>> ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder [](mailto:parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Imran, very useful.. >>>> >>>> So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... >>>> >>>> It cannot get more absurd that this.. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>> There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002. >>>>> At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. >>>>> >>>>> No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder [](mailto:parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From those who know I request response to this question: >>>>> >>>>> Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. >>>>> >>>>> 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. >>>>> >>>>> Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya [](mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <[CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com](mailto:CAJjTEvFXJ%2BZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p%2BO_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com)> you write: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >>>>>>> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear John, >>>>>> ...have you used it yourselves ? >>>>>> >>>>>>> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>> --sb. >>>>>> >>>>>>> R's, >>>>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>> List help: >>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > -- > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 11 13:24:40 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:24:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus Message-ID: Hi all, I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ==== About the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Dec 11 13:27:58 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:27:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > *, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It allowed ISOC to take an even more active role in shaping Internet infrastructure.* This is, IMO, laughable. What is true is that ISOC would have gone broke without PIR. And everyone knew that. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 11 13:37:20 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:37:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ayden, Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include a link to the website. *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. These members include representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* Thanks! Best Sheetal. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to > affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our > statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I > wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have > not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have > the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I > would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description > if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > ==== > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and > individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in > Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our > members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free > software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of > other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed > following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 11 13:43:30 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:43:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sheetal, thanks for these important edits! Best wishes, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:37 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include a link to the website. > > The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. These members include representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. > > Thanks! > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> ==== >> >> About the Internet Governance Caucus >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > -- > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 11 13:48:04 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:48:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your consideration. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline === To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations. In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender. Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. About the Internet Governance Caucus [[Description to go here]]] [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ [8] Netherlands (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm [17] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. [18] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: > I support that too. > Best, > Niels > On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > >> 100% in support. >> WISDOM DONKOR >> President & CEO >> Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation >> P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org http://www.aodirf.org >> Tel: +233 20 812 8851 >> Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk >> Specialization: >> E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, * >> * >> MEMBER >> UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group >> UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) >> UN BPF on Gender and Access >> UN IGF National Regional Initiatives >> UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI >> Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO >> National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana >> ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, >> Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition >> Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee >> World Bank Open Data Working Team, >> Africa Open Data Collaborative >> Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force >> Linux Accra Users Group >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. >> >> Is there support for this proposal? >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> >> To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net >> List help: https://riseup.net/lists > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > List help: https://riseup.net/lists -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 13:55:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:55:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much for these efforts, Ayden! Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 à 15:44, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : > Hi Sheetal, thanks for these important edits! > > Best wishes, Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:37 PM, Sheetal Kumar < > sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: > > Hi Ayden, > > Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of > IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the > charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as > far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not > afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a > longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include > a link to the website. > > *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to > promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda > setting and decision making processes. These members include > representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free > software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of > other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed > around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* > > Thanks! > > Best > Sheetal. > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to >> affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our >> statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I >> wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have >> not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have >> the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I >> would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description >> if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> ==== >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and >> individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in >> Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our >> members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >> following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 11 14:11:03 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 19:11:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <300c31a8-b7a3-8b3c-9cb6-a03d38d2f915@itforchange.net> <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: small tweak suggested for last paragraph Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that [you have] ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Ayden Férdeline" To: "Sheetal Kumar" Cc: "parminder" ; "Imran Ahmed Shah" ; "governance at lists.riseup.net" Sent: 12/12/2019 5:15:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >Hi all, > >Thanks for all the friendly amendments. > >I want to make sure that I have captured all of them. > >Please find below attached an updated version of our proposed statement >to send to the ISOC Board. > >I would also suggest that we affix a short paragraph, to the very end, >explaining who the Internet Governance Caucus is and what we represent. >I will send some proposed language under separate cover so we can >wordsmith this separately. This, I hope, will address the comment >asking who 'we' is in the context of this letter. > >Thank you again. > >Best wishes, >Ayden Férdeline > >========== > >To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >Society > > >As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement >that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest >Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, >.NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called >off. > > >Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and >weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining >non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a >counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and >.ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are >run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the >interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also >conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights >implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do >what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of >doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and >wider influence. It 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. > > >We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, >not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. > > >We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more >transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to >publishing on its website all 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. > > >We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who >promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >coherent with those values when making major decisions. > > >This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for >ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) >without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without >consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate >safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. > > >ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global >home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this >background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, >we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values >we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw >from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling >PIR, so to honor its charter. > > >About the Internet Governance Caucus > > >[Description to go here] > > >‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:04 PM, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >>Dear all, >> >>The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and >>having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, >>this is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase >>pressure! >> >>Please provide your views on the following text by COP tomorrow, 12 >>December. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. >> >>In particular, you may want to consider the following questions >> >>1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, >>can you provide a rationale and some suggested text? >>2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you >>provide a rationale? >> >>Thank you! >> >>Best >>Sheetal. >> >>To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >>Society >> >> >>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement >>that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public >>Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including >>the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be >>called off. >> >> >>Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >>investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and >>weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining >>non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a >>counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, >>and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains >>are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While >>the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can >>also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights >>implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do >>what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of >>doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. >>It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >>infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose >>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. >> >> >>We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >>September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >>November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, >>not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >> >> >>We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be >>more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC >>commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> >>We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >>who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >>open and transparent about major decisions. >> >> >>This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for >>ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) >>without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without >>consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate >>safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >> >> >>ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >>reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global >>home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this >>background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and >>openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with >>the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to >>withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from >>selling PIR, and to honor its charter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder >>wrote: >>>agree, parminder >>> >>>On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important >>>>and necessary... >>>> >>>>Regards >>>> >>>>Imran >>>> >>>>On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I >>>>have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could >>>>potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key >>>>changes are in red. Thanks! >>>> >>>>Ayden Férdeline >>>>-- >>>> >>>>To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >>>>Society >>>> >>>> >>>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement >>>>that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public >>>>Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including >>>>the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale >>>>be called off. >>>> >>>> >>>>Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private >>>>entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name >>>>System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only >>>>remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in >>>>serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran >>>>.ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other >>>>top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial >>>>objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times >>>>overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >>>>significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, >>>>could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name >>>>registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, >>>>PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take >>>>an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing >>>>its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >>>>September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >>>>November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, >>>>not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >>>> >>>> >>>>We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be >>>>more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC >>>>commit to publishing on its website all 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >>>>who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >>>>open and transparent about major decisions. >>>> >>>> >>>>This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, >>>>for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) >>>>without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without >>>>consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate >>>>safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>>registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >>>> >>>> >>>>ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >>>>reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the >>>>global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given >>>>this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and >>>>openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken >>>>with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon >>>>ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to >>>>withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder >>>> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks Imran, very useful.. >>>>> >>>>>So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million >>>>>subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community >>>>>is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset >>>>>-- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling >>>>>off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and >>>>>augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just >>>>>applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... >>>>> >>>>>It cannot get more absurd that this.. >>>>> >>>>>parminder >>>>> >>>>>On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>>>Hi Parminder, >>>>>>There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign >>>>>>was leaving in 2002. >>>>>>At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were >>>>>>quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on >>>>>>VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of >>>>>>their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). >>>>>>ISOC was not the lowest bidder. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from >>>>>>ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for >>>>>>capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million >>>>>>domain names. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards >>>>>> >>>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>> >>>>>>On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder >>>>>> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>From those who know I request response to this question: >>>>>> >>>>>>Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart >>>>>>from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay >>>>>>anything, and if so how much? >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>>parminder >>>>>> >>>>>>On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, >>>>>>which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a >>>>>>"level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the >>>>>>Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them >>>>>>over other bidders. >>>>>> >>>>>>6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. >>>>>> >>>>>>Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, >>>>>>particularly those actually using .org domain names for >>>>>>noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the >>>>>>proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views >>>>>>about policy and management, and no single organization can fully >>>>>>encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely >>>>>>be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support >>>>>>for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants >>>>>>and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate >>>>>>the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from >>>>>>across the global Internet community. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>>Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya >>>>>> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine >>>>>>>a écrit : >>>>>>>>In article >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>you write: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to >>>>>>>>evaluate >>>>>>>>the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear John, >>>>>>>...have you used it yourselves ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>>...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if >>>>>>>there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the >>>>>>>key words : *By and For* ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Shalom, >>>>>>>--sb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>R's, >>>>>>>>John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>List help: >>>>>>--- >>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>List help: >>>> >>>>--- >>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>List help: >>>--- >>>To unsubscribe: >>>List help: >> >> >>-- >> >> >> >>Sheetal Kumar >>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 03:11:14 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <1D6BE02F-6868-4BE8-83DC-45CD24234994@hserus.net> References: <3C2D73BD-DC44-4D6B-BB11-C1156CB2618E@pch.net> <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> <1780713347.7469071.1575269772445@mail.yahoo.com> <1D6BE02F-6868-4BE8-83DC-45CD24234994@hserus.net> Message-ID: <869064174.7471414.1575274274468@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Suresh, >Do you have some data points for the assumption that operating the registry at Donuts will reduce the costs by “a lot”? The cost of the maintaining registry operation is not too much costly solution, and adding up the instances along with the other dozens of the gTLDs, there in no additional hardware of infrastructure cost involved.. >Domain registrations in org aren’t growing all that fast - .org is at 10 million domains – lower than ccTLDs like uk, tk and de (https://www.verisign.com/en_IN/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml?section=tlds).  If you limit your search to actual non profits registering .org names that will show at most a fractional increase year on year. Afilias charged $3.75/domain to run the registry, for 10m domains getting approx $37.5m/yr. As you asked for statistics,... let me quote you the example of your dot IN ccTLD for comparision. Afilias quoted $1.1/domain and Neustar won the bid for $0.70 per domain name to maintain less then 2m domains (<$1.4m annual). Secondly, also note that in during the evaluation previous bidding of .ORG in Accra, Ghana meeting in March 2002, ICANN board did not accepted the proposal of reduction of the registry price below US$6, comparing with the GNR proposed price of $3.47/domain (around 42% reduction at that time), while Neustar proposed to setup $5/domain. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Consultant/ Advisor[TLDians.com][Urdu Internet Council] On Monday, 2 December 2019, 12:30:16 GMT+5, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Do you have some data points for the assumption that operating the registry at Donuts will reduce the costs by “a lot”?   Domain registrations in org aren’t growing all that fast - .org is at 10 million domains – lower than ccTLDs like uk, tk and de (Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) - Verisign).  If you limit your search to actual non profits registering .org names that will show at most a fractional increase year on year. | | | | | | | | | | | Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) - Verisign Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) provides up-to-date trends in new registrations, renewals and growth. | | |     From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 12:26 PM To: IGCaucus , Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell   Dear Bill,   While comparing the revenue and income project of next 10 years, also add the yearly growth of domain registrations. Secondly, also note that....."PIR generated $101 million in revenue in 2018 and contributed nearly $50 million to Internet Society. It contributed $74 million to ISOC in 2017." "PIR paid over $33 millions to Afilias (in 2014)" to run the Registry Operations. Comparing with donuts.domains, if .Org operations are shifted from Afilias, the expense will reduce a lot.   Think about 2-3 years ahead, if this investor exit and sells it to new bidder for $2b or $3b, should they calculate for setting up new prices for return of investment?   However, question is not how the .Org is profitable for perceptive buyers, either it is ethos and any other future bidder, the question is the Public Interest vs Commercial Interest (or Non Public Interest).     Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah   On Monday, 2 December 2019, 03:49:28 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote:     Forwarded from another list:   From: Bill Woodcock Date: December 1, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM GMT+1   Since I haven’t seen anyone else actually post this analysis yet, here goes:     Ethos’ offered purchase price is $1.135B.  At that price, if they exercise the maximum 10% annual wholesale price increase, .ORG domains wind up at $26/year at the end of the ten-year period.  If Ethos pays the actual cost of registry and DNS services, without the subsidies ISOC currently receives, but continues at the same level of quality, they’d make a total of $318M in profit over the ten years, or 8.59% annualized return.  If they cut spending to the bone, using the crappiest available registry and DNS services and not caring how much downtime they had, they could increase their profit to $598M, or 9.71% annualized return.   If they were to do a single 10% increase, at the beginning of the first year, they’d lose $355M if they maintained current service levels, or $55M if they axed spending.  If they maintained current prices, they’d lose $435M or $155M.  Private equity doesn’t plan to lose money. Therefore the suggestions from the public that the deal be allowed to proceed “if they agree not to raise prices” or “if they only raise prices 10%” simply won’t happen.   The other implication of this is that if a non-profit were to buy from ISOC and maintain current prices, putting all available money toward ISOC and keeping nothing for themselves, they could only offer $700M, and that would be at the rate of $70M per year, “seller financed” at no interest.  ISOC is currently chewing up $45M/year, but once they’re no longer dependent on .ORG, they could drop a significant chunk of their spending that’s going toward maintaining those interests.  Let’s say that they could drop their spending to $30M.  That would leave $40M in excess profits each year going toward an endowment:       At the end of the ten-year period, the endowment would stand at $626M, and interest from the endowment would be $50M/year.  Which is more than they’re receiving right now.  If they continued to just draw $30M/year, the endowment would continue to grow by $20M/year, making it safer and safer over time.   So, I don’t think it works to ask Ethos to not raise prices, but (putting aside the fact that they’ve already signed an agreement with Ethos, which ICANN or the State of Pennsylvania would have to stop) ISOC could certainly do well (not _as_ well, but much better than they’re doing right now) and be completely out of the domain name business, while giving .ORG registrants a guarantee of no price increases, and having .ORG become fully non-profit, rather than the odd non-profit/for-profit hybrid it is right now.                                   -Bill --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 93443 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 56473 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 14:36:08 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:36:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now In-Reply-To: References: <011e01d5afd4$44b29720$ce17c560$@palage.com> Message-ID: Hi, How many members are on the IGC list at present after the recent best bits/IGC rationalization. Curious to see what "39 responses" represents of the total membership. On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 10:51 AM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for the engagement on the poll. You are right, there are many > options that could have been proposed and it's too late now to change the > poll. The aim was to provide some clarity on a way forward on the main > options, and not to create confusion by providing all possible options. > Apologies if you feel the most important options weren't captured but > hopefully it hasn't created more confusion. On the results, there is more > support for calling for a halt then there is for calling just for > transparency, about double the support in fact. There are 39 complete > responses in total. > > So, I suggest we move forward with discussing the text already suggested > on the other thread by Ayden, which, as it turns out, calls for a complete > halt to the sale. If you want to make changes, please suggest so there. > I'll propose a timeframe and way forward on that thread. > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 03:37, Michael Palage wrote: > >> Hello Bill, >> >> A little legal clarification. The original Registry Contract with >> NSI/VeriSign (1999) bundled all three TLDs together. When VRSN was given a >> presumptive renewal in connection with .COM, .NET and .ORG were split off >> into separate registry agreements. VRSN was not able to bid on .ORG, but it >> was able to bid on and then win the .NET RFP which is now a presumptive >> renewal contract. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock >> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:58 PM >> To: Sylvain BAYA >> Cc: governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] POLL ON .ORG LETTER: You can participate now >> >> >> >> > On Dec 10, 2019, at 4:49 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote: >> >> 1) Some people would be okay with a sale to Ethos specifically, if >> Ethos were to make a compromise or promises of some sort. >> >> >> >> 2) Some people are ok with a sale to a private entity in principle, >> but not to Ethos because of the specific insider dealings that led to that >> deal. >> >> >> >> 3) Some people are ok with a transfer to a not-for-profit entity, >> provided it operated .ORG in its originally intended spirit. >> >> >> >> 4) Some people presumably want ISOC to continue in its current role of >> .ORG beneficiary. >> > >> > 5) Some people would not be ok with the sale of the PIR >> >> I think (4) and (5) are maybe similar? By (5) do you mean that ISOC >> continues operating .ORG via PIR? >> >> > 6) Some people would not be ok with the stewardship of the .ORG/PIR by >> any non-profit Org >> >> Do you mean that some people would _only_ be happy with for-profit >> control of .ORG? Or is that double-negative unintentional? >> >> > ...in (5) i consider that the PIR was a grant (with a clear goal) to >> InternetSociety.ORG, >> >> Mmmm, not exactly. PIR was created by ISOC as a holding company to >> receive the _temporary_ delegation of the .ORG domain. That was on a >> three-year renewable delegation. There was never a grant of anything to >> anyone. >> >> > by VeriSign ; under the regulatory recommendations of ICANN >> >> Verisign didn’t have a choice in the matter, really… Their actions were >> dictated to them by ICANN. In exchange for giving up .ORG, they retained >> presumptive control of .COM and .NET for a while longer. .ORG was the >> smallest of the three, so it was a reasonable sacrifice from their point of >> view. ICANN (the IANA, really) performed the redelegation. So it was an >> action by ICANN, not a recommendation; and there was not an action by >> Verisign, in the sense that none of this originated with them or was >> performed by them. >> >> These may be small differences, and I’m not saying all this to be >> argumentative, just to try to make sure that I’ve been as good as I can be >> about putting information before people clearly. While I was there, I was >> not central to that part of the process, and my memory is not perfect, so >> if anyone has a better recollection, please jump in. >> >> > ; then should not be sold… The (6) is capturing the fact that Bill >> mentioned first here : "By and For non-commercial" >> >> So are you saying that you believe that .ORG should not be sold? Do you >> believe that ISOC should continue to hold it, via PIR? >> >> -Bill >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 11 15:54:57 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 20:54:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <666448853.12207210.1576097697261@mail.yahoo.com> I support this statement. Regards Imran  On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, 23:48:45 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi all, Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your consideration. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline === To:     Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN Cc:    Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations. In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements.   We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender.  Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR.  This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR.  Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work.  Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. About the Internet Governance Caucus [[Description to go here]]]    [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ [8] Netherlands (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm  [17] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. [18] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: I support that too. Best, Niels On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: 100% in support. WISDOM DONKOR President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org http://www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |  Twitter: @wisdom_dk Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance,  Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security,  Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, * * MEMBER UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) UN BPF on Gender and Access UN IGF National Regional Initiatives UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana   ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee  World Bank Open Data Working Team, Africa Open Data Collaborative  Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force  Linux Accra Users Group On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Is there support for this proposal? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: > List help: To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net List help: https://riseup.net/lists -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net List help: https://riseup.net/lists --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Dec 11 16:28:54 2019 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:28:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sheetal Might it not be better to describe the membership exactly as it has been, aka as it is on the website? That is: "The members of IGC are individuals, acting in (their) personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus", and then list the items from the charter that we subscribe to? That way there is less drift in our description over time... Regards Jacqueline Morris On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 2:37 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Hi Ayden, > > Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of > IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the > charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as > far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not > afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a > longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include > a link to the website. > > *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to > promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda > setting and decision making processes. These members include > representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free > software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of > other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed > around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* > > Thanks! > > Best > Sheetal. > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to >> affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our >> statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I >> wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have >> not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have >> the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I >> would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description >> if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> ==== >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and >> individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in >> Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our >> members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >> following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Dec 11 16:39:55 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:39:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: IGF 2019 Debrief Roundtable #igfdebrief Message-ID: This is has just started. ISOC Live posted: "On Wednesday December 2 2019, at 4:30pm ET (21:30 UTC), the Internet Society Washington DC Chapter, DiploUS, and IGF-USA will host a roundtable to follow up on the 2019 Internet Governance Forum. From 25 to 29 November 2019 over 3,600 people gathered in B" [image: Livestream] On *Wednesday December 2 2019*, at *4:30pm ET* (21:30 UTC), the *Internet Society Washington DC Chapter *, *DiploUS *, and *IGF-USA * will host *a roundtable * to follow up on the *2019 Internet Governance Forum *. From 25 to 29 November 2019 over 3,600 people gathered in Berlin to move the dialogue forward on some of the most pressing issues and questions facing the Internet, focusing on 3 main themes: *Digital Inclusion*; *Data Governance*; and *Security, Safety, Stability, and Resilience*. In addition, a major topic was “*IGF Plus *,” which has been proposed as a way to strengthen the current IGF structure to address the perceived shortcomings of the forum, such as a lack of actionable outcomes, or limited participation by governments and the private sector. Remote participation will be available via *Zoom *, as well as *Livestream *. *LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/igfdebrief * *ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/784700379 * *TWITTER: #igf2019 #igfdebrief @isocdc @US_Diplo @igfusa* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11578/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 00:43:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:13:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012401d5b0af$23d8bdf0$6b8a39d0$@com> Looks good Ayden. Thanks for all your efforts. Regards Amrita From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 12:18 AM To: Niels ten Oever Cc: governance at lists.riseup.net Subject: Re: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale Hi all, Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your consideration. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline === To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations. In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender. Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. About the Internet Governance Caucus [[Description to go here]]] [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ [8] Netherlands ( https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland ( https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal ( https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf [15] On their website ( https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm [17] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. [18] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: I support that too. Best, Niels On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: 100% in support. WISDOM DONKOR President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org http://www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, * * MEMBER UN IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion (CENB) UN BPF on Gender and Access UN IGF National Regional Initiatives UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, NCSG, NCUC, AFRALO National SDG Data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana ICANN, Internet Society, Freedom Online Coalition, Diplo Foundation, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition Ghana Open Government Partnership (OGP) Advisory Committee World Bank Open Data Working Team, Africa Open Data Collaborative Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force Linux Accra Users Group On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Is there support for this proposal? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: > List help: To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net List help: https://riseup.net/lists -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 _____ To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net List help: https://riseup.net/lists -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jovank at diplomacy.edu Thu Dec 12 01:59:04 2019 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:59:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] a Message-ID: P -- *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd*Executive Director, DiploFoundation & Head, Geneva Internet Platform *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 12 03:15:17 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:45:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22759c7a-4943-7e1e-a0f4-6fc9b0dfb58d@itforchange.net> On 12/12/19 12:07 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Hi Ayden,  > > Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members > of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to > the charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). > Also, as far as I understand the coalition came into being around the > WSIS, not afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a > longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can > include a link to the website. > > /The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition/ /global coalition (add global) / > /of members / something cannot be a coalition of (its) members -- a category problem here, members come after the coalition not before.... say coalition of organisations and individuals > /who wish to promote global public interest objectives/ > /in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. > These members include representatives of civil liberties groups, > universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development > organizations, / I was not in favour of this 'types' listing, but having done it, add social justice groups  (there are really no reps of universities here) and also, It is ICT for development organisations and not ICT development > /and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public > interest. The coalition was formed around the World Summit on the > Information Society in 2003./ > > Thanks! > > Best > Sheetal. > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be > helpful to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the > recipients of our statement, if it is sent, better understand who > has written to them. I wanted to propose the following text, with > the very big caveat that I have not been subscribed to this > mailing list for very long, so I may well have the history wrong > and not fully understand how this list came to be. I would > appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this > description if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > ==== > > */About the Internet Governance Caucus/**/ > /* > / > / > /The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations > and individuals who wish to promote global public interest > objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision > making processes. Our members include civil liberties groups, > universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development > organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to > the public interest. The coalition was formed following the first > World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.// > / > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 04:14:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: <22759c7a-4943-7e1e-a0f4-6fc9b0dfb58d@itforchange.net> References: <22759c7a-4943-7e1e-a0f4-6fc9b0dfb58d@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1462893562.12465379.1576142050362@mail.yahoo.com> I would also suggest to add Some abstract from the members, vision and mission statement as described in the IGC Charter: e.g. I suggest to add:"Internet Governance Advocacy" and contributing "Development, Review and Implementation of Internet Governance Policies"   vision and mission as described in the IGC Charter: Vision The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. Mission The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Thursday, 12 December 2019, 13:16:17 GMT+5, parminder wrote: On 12/12/19 12:07 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Hi Ayden,  Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include a link to the website. The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition global coalition (add global) of members something cannot be a coalition of (its) members -- a category problem here, members come after the coalition not before.... say coalition of organisations and individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. These members include representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, I was not in favour of this 'types' listing, but having done it, add social justice groups  (there are really no reps of universities here) and also, It is ICT for development organisations and not ICT development and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. Thanks! Best Sheetal. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi all, I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ==== About the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Thu Dec 12 07:30:42 2019 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:30:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] ACTION: La Quadrature du Net - Sign an open-letter against security and surveillance Facial Recognition Message-ID: Dear all La Quadrature du Net, French Digital Rights NGO, is asking organizations around the world to sign an open letter (see attachment) requesting a ban on facial recognition for security and surveillance purposes. This letter will be addressed to the French government as well as to the French legislator. Deadline is before December 17th. Please let LQDN directly (cc LQDN on this email) know if you can sign onto the letter. Best, Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Letter- Ban Security and Surveillance Facial Recognition.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 31039 bytes Desc: not available URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Dec 12 07:32:02 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:32:02 -0600 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m with Jacqueline... if there’s a definition (individuals) and it fits (it does), use it rather than trying to characterize the second-order characteristic of what kinds of organizations those individuals work for. Individuals are stakeholders. There’s no need to search further for relevance. -Bill > On Dec 11, 2019, at 15:29, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > >  > Hi Sheetal > Might it not be better to describe the membership exactly as it has been, aka as it is on the website? > That is: > "The members of IGC are individuals, acting in (their) personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus", and then list the items from the charter that we subscribe to? That way there is less drift in our description over time... > > Regards > Jacqueline Morris > >> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 2:37 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include a link to the website. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. These members include representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> >>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> ==== >>> >>> About the Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>> The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 03:16:25 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <869064174.7471414.1575274274468@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3C2D73BD-DC44-4D6B-BB11-C1156CB2618E@pch.net> <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> <1780713347.7469071.1575269772445@mail.yahoo.com> <1D6BE02F-6868-4BE8-83DC-45CD24234994@hserus.net> <869064174.7471414.1575274274468@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.D8DE3B62-5721-4518-BFAD-8E3CD915323D@mail.outlook.com> You can run mail for a small non profit or neighbourhood club on an old pc running Linux / BSD and in fact several of the smaller cctlds were running on just such antique / donated infrastructure earlier.   When you get to a larger user base and have higher sla and availability concerns you need rather more infrastructure.   It is always a trade off between cheap fast and good - you get a maximum of two out of three in general --srs On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:41 PM +0530, "Imran Ahmed Shah" wrote: Hi Suresh, >Do you have some data points for the assumption that operating the registry at Donuts will reduce the costs by “a lot”? The cost of the maintaining registry operation is not too much costly solution, and adding up the instances along with the other dozens of the gTLDs, there in no additional hardware of infrastructure cost involved.. >Domain registrations in org aren’t growing all that fast - .org is at 10 million domains – lower than ccTLDs like uk, tk and de (https://www.verisign.com/en_IN/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml?section=tlds).  If you limit your search to actual non profits registering .org names that will show at most a fractional increase year on year. Afilias charged $3.75/domain to run the registry, for 10m domains getting approx $37.5m/yr. As you asked for statistics,... let me quote you the example of your dot IN ccTLD for comparision. Afilias quoted $1.1/domain and Neustar won the bid for $0.70 per domain name to maintain less then 2m domains (<$1.4m annual). Secondly, also note that in during the evaluation previous bidding of .ORG in Accra, Ghana meeting in March 2002, ICANN board did not accepted the proposal of reduction of the registry price below US$6, comparing with the GNR proposed price of $3.47/domain (around 42% reduction at that time), while Neustar proposed to setup $5/domain. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Consultant/ Advisor[TLDians.com][Urdu Internet Council] On Monday, 2 December 2019, 12:30:16 GMT+5, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Do you have some data points for the assumption that operating the registry at Donuts will reduce the costs by “a lot”?   Domain registrations in org aren’t growing all that fast - .org is at 10 million domains – lower than ccTLDs like uk, tk and de (Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) - Verisign).  If you limit your search to actual non profits registering .org names that will show at most a fractional increase year on year. Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) - Verisign Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB) provides up-to-date trends in new registrations, renewals and growth.     From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 12:26 PM To: IGCaucus , Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell   Dear Bill,   While comparing the revenue and income project of next 10 years, also add the yearly growth of domain registrations. Secondly, also note that....."PIR generated $101 million in revenue in 2018 and contributed nearly $50 million to Internet Society. It contributed $74 million to ISOC in 2017." "PIR paid over $33 millions to Afilias (in 2014)" to run the Registry Operations. Comparing with donuts.domains, if .Org operations are shifted from Afilias, the expense will reduce a lot.   Think about 2-3 years ahead, if this investor exit and sells it to new bidder for $2b or $3b, should they calculate for setting up new prices for return of investment?   However, question is not how the .Org is profitable for perceptive buyers, either it is ethos and any other future bidder, the question is the Public Interest vs Commercial Interest (or Non Public Interest).     Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah   On Monday, 2 December 2019, 03:49:28 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote:     Forwarded from another list:   From: Bill Woodcock Date: December 1, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM GMT+1   Since I haven’t seen anyone else actually post this analysis yet, here goes:     Ethos’ offered purchase price is $1.135B.  At that price, if they exercise the maximum 10% annual wholesale price increase, .ORG domains wind up at $26/year at the end of the ten-year period.  If Ethos pays the actual cost of registry and DNS services, without the subsidies ISOC currently receives, but continues at the same level of quality, they’d make a total of $318M in profit over the ten years, or 8.59% annualized return.  If they cut spending to the bone, using the crappiest available registry and DNS services and not caring how much downtime they had, they could increase their profit to $598M, or 9.71% annualized return.   If they were to do a single 10% increase, at the beginning of the first year, they’d lose $355M if they maintained current service levels, or $55M if they axed spending.  If they maintained current prices, they’d lose $435M or $155M.  Private equity doesn’t plan to lose money. Therefore the suggestions from the public that the deal be allowed to proceed “if they agree not to raise prices” or “if they only raise prices 10%” simply won’t happen.   The other implication of this is that if a non-profit were to buy from ISOC and maintain current prices, putting all available money toward ISOC and keeping nothing for themselves, they could only offer $700M, and that would be at the rate of $70M per year, “seller financed” at no interest.  ISOC is currently chewing up $45M/year, but once they’re no longer dependent on .ORG, they could drop a significant chunk of their spending that’s going toward maintaining those interests.  Let’s say that they could drop their spending to $30M.  That would leave $40M in excess profits each year going toward an endowment:       At the end of the ten-year period, the endowment would stand at $626M, and interest from the endowment would be $50M/year.  Which is more than they’re receiving right now.  If they continued to just draw $30M/year, the endowment would continue to grow by $20M/year, making it safer and safer over time.   So, I don’t think it works to ask Ethos to not raise prices, but (putting aside the fact that they’ve already signed an agreement with Ethos, which ICANN or the State of Pennsylvania would have to stop) ISOC could certainly do well (not _as_ well, but much better than they’re doing right now) and be completely out of the domain name business, while giving .ORG registrants a guarantee of no price increases, and having .ORG become fully non-profit, rather than the odd non-profit/for-profit hybrid it is right now.                                   -Bill --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 93443 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 56473 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 13:49:35 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seth Johnson (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:49:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] World Telecom Policy Forum Coming -- Fwd: Comments on Sec Gen WTPF Draft Report Message-ID: The ITU Secretary General has a second draft of the framing document for the next World Telecom Policy Forum posted here: https://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-21/Pages/sg-report.aspx I've pasted comments I put together on the first draft below. As you may know, a key place to make a constructive contribution to these international fora is in the preparation of the documents that define the events' scope. It would be good to contribute opinions that address what's meant by sustainability while addressing what technologies there are that support the notion. They have on online consultation receiving comments til December 23: https://www.itu.int/en/consultations/Pages/wtpf-21/consultation-WTPF-21.aspx It might also be good if some good folks with some kind of specialization in sustainability could be found to see about joining the Informal Experts Group for its next meeting in February. Seth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Johnson Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:07:49 -0500 Subject: Comments on Sec Gen WTPF Draft Report To: "Oates, Daniel M" Cc: "Gordon, Marian R" Hi Dan and Marian: See below my quick comments on the Secretary General's draft: The Secretary-General's draft report/outline doesn't reference the Internet as such except in the term Internet of Things and by reference, as in as contained in the Strategic Plan and various surrounding documents. However, the policy discourse in the US is about to embark on a fargoing examination of issues that will end up talking about how the Internet supports fundamental rights as opposed to higher layer online platform environments that are receiving the brunt of policy debate. This will include the role of the physical layer. Addressing sustainability and new and emerging technologies should incorporate reference to these issues rather than technologies like 5G, IoT, OTT. Maybe big data is more of an issues category. AI is more about security and accountability and recourse in many areas than strictly about what can be automated with greater speed and precision. Also about accountability and recourse with respect to accuracy and truth and science. As a contributor to sustainability, we should consider AI under the topic of the WTPF, including AI's sustainability in itself as such, in terms of articulating how to understand the challenges and opportunities associated with it. The report should focus more on how to address opportunities, challenges and policies for sustainable development in relation to emerging technologies that support sustainability and enable the transition to the digital economy. That includes how open Internet architecture addresses these opportunities and challenges. How can the benefits of new and emerging digital technologies be made more accessible to all? ensuring interoperability of technological solutions based on these emerging technologies to facilitate, among other things, greater access for all? Given the inter-connections or -dependencies in the use and deployment of such technologies, what is the role that policymakers can play to foster an enabling environment that creates a holistic and agile ecosystem to enable sustainable use of new and emerging digital technologies? how does ITU membership envision the role of new and emerging digital technologies in accelerating sustainable development, keeping in mind the current and future needs of both developing and developed countries as well as all segments of the population? The report should reflect a framework that better admits contributions that stress these opportunities and challenges in relation to these and other emerging technology headings rather than suggest an emphasis on particular technologies given their putative support for sustainability. The emphasis should be more on the implications for "infrastructure needs, investment, regulatory environment, training and skills development, market environment, institutional cooperation, the role of development aid, etc." and how the Action Lines and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals are served in light of the enabling environment's effects on those goals. The report should reference freedoms of speech, press and association, privacy, data and consumer protection as challenges and opportunities that connect to mobilizing technologies for sustainable development. Other relevant concerns here include: sustainability of open infrastructure confidence and security both in terms of prevention of harm and in terms of fundamental liberties as limits on government action in the name of cybersecurity centralized or decentralized approaches to cybersecurity sustainability of specialized services and open Internet, including interoperability confidence and security in a platform that supports innovation and development empowerment of end users, digital inclusion, self-determination, autonomy, independence of communities There should also be a contributed opinion on how we measure sustainability, both its development and what's included in those measures. Thanks, hope this helps Seth On 8/1/19, Oates, Daniel M wrote: > Good evening colleagues: > > I will be coordinating on behalf of USG on preparations for the Sixth World > Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2021 (WTPF-21). From peter at accessnow.org Thu Dec 12 14:53:40 2019 From: peter at accessnow.org (Peter Micek) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:53:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] New Access Now infographic and letter to US congress re: .ORG Message-ID: Hi all, We have published a new infographic advocating against the sale of .ORG: https://twitter.com/accessnow/status/1205173521070080001 Please share it widely! We also wrote to US Congress requesting an investigation into ISOC's proposed sale: https://www.accessnow.org/why-us-congress-should-investigate-sale-of-org This follows the Dec 3 statement by U.S. Senator Wyden announcing an investigation via Tweet in response to this Mashable article. Quote: “This is extremely concerning. I'm looking into how this sale happened, what can be done, and what it will mean for non-profits and users.” Onward! Peter -- Peter Micek General Counsel Access Now | accessnow.org RightsCon | rightscon.org Pronouns: He/Him, They/Them Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express < https://www.accessnow.org/express>, our weekly newsletter on digital rights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 16:00:39 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:00:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : > Hi all, > > Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a > statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your > consideration. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > === > Many thanks dear Ayden. *To: * *Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN* > > *Cc:* *Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN* > > *We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to > the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. > As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that > Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, > .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1]* > > *Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their > email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just > domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network > which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we > believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made > following consultation with impacted registrants and the global > non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, > which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the > delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2]* > > *The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations.* > ...{*i'm not a native english though :'-(*} i think it's the Registry which provides a service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for illustration : “ *The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be constituted * *by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet community which * *is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to commercial's or for-profit * *entities).*” * In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a > new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original > purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as > a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, > article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and > Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum > of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to > establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the > non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG > registry.”[4]* > ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial error ; though, understandable because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and members of the 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... *The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental > organizations. * > ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which provides a service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a need to preferably rephrased like this : “ *The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is intended to be * *constituted by non-governmental organizations.*” *Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR > states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through > non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or > through evidence of NGO status.”[5]* > > *Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and > indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial > number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has > sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s > largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. > We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 > signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue > statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale > has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street > Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade > press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim > Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to > question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question > the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We > are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR.* > > *Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the > .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do > the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements.* > > > > *We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for > performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for > public tender. * > ...good advice/request ! The tone is well measured. Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : " *...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate itself from the PIR, * *in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing model.*" *Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust > Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a > letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for > renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent > operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14]* > ...good piece ! *Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of > the tender process, * > ...*i firmly oppose* this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency with the fundamental logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this draft. If EC becomes, suddently, a non-profit (*Beneficial Corp ???*), it would be great to recommend it...not before ! ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by the 'dealer' of the PIR : *[...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids during the 2002 .ORG * *registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that the ISC (Internet * *Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : ‘too much * *non-profit !’ * *And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit company. [...]* ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : “ *In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [*][**], we firmly recommend * *that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that tender process.” * *“In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the non-commercial * *Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG registry (via * *a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please act accordingly.*” __ [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 < https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> [**]: *as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of > non-profits and other public interest groups. * > ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. *However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to > indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. * > >> *This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no > track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they > have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] * > I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this letter. It's not about that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, i can formulate as follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the development of the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not only a single stakeholder in the Internet community... *We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations > bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for > our resource-poor communities. **As you may remember, an important > consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first > instance was affordability.[16]* > ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. *If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer > of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and > non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and > other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack > of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. * > > *Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain > name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG > domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal > rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its > materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American > College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, > estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level > domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor > communities and hinder our good work. * > > *Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted > partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture > capital firm. * > > *Thank you for your time and consideration of our request.* > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *[[Description to go here]]] * > > > > *[1] * > *https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/* > > > *[2] **https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591* > > > *[3] **https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en* > > see section D.1 & D.2 < https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> *[4] * > *https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4* > > ...what a great find ! *[5] * > *https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm* > > > *[6] * > *https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry* > > > *[7] **https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab* > * and * > *https://savedotorg.org/* > > *[8] Netherlands (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html* > *), > Switzerland (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html* > *), > Portugal (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html* > > *)* > > *[9] **https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html* > > > *[10] * > *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* > > > *[11] **https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a* > > > *[12] **https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824* > > > *[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: * > *https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy* > > > < https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/author.html#start > *[14] See page 10, * > *https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf* > > > *[15] On their website (**https://www.keypointsabout.org/* > *), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is > to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, > which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on > average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices > annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains > double in price every five years.* > > *[16] **https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm* > > *[17] Page 16, * > *https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf* > *.* > > *[18] * > *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* > > > Done ! thanks. Shalom, --sb. > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever > lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: > > I support that too. > Best, > Niels > On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > 100% in support. > WISDOM DONKOR > President & CEO > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > > [...] > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com > wrote: > > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > [...] > > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > ------------------------------ > > [...] > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Dec 12 17:22:46 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:22:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook publishes new information on its oversight board Message-ID: Hi all, Facebook has made two major announcements today about its future oversight board. First, it has committed to sending $130 million to an independent trust over the next six years to support the work of the oversight board. Second, Facebook commissioned an independent human rights impact assessment, and this will form a part of the board's charter and bylaws. https://about.fb.com/news/2019/12/oversight-board-update/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 17:29:38 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:29:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook publishes new information on its oversight board In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting, Thanks for sharing *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:23 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Hi all, > > Facebook has made two major announcements today about its future oversight > board. First, it has committed to sending $130 million to an independent > trust over the next six years to support the work of the oversight board. > Second, Facebook commissioned an independent human rights impact > assessment, and this will form a part of the board's charter and bylaws. > > https://about.fb.com/news/2019/12/oversight-board-update/ > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Dec 12 17:46:28 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:46:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Blockchain=E2=80=99s_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Revolutionizing_Your_Digital_Identity_And_Government_Can_Lead_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=23BlockchainIC?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I now perceive I typo'd the livestream link on this! It is livestream.com/internetsociety/blockchainic This was a good summary of the Blockchain policy scenario in the USA. Please excuse occasional skips. It's about time Congress got decent Wi-Fi! joly On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:11 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > Get your acronyms straight on this. we are talking DLT (distributed layer > technology) applied to IDMSs (identity management systems). Also be > aware that the Internet Society has an active Blockchain SIG Community > > on ISOC Connect. > ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday December 5 2019 at 12pm EST (17:00 UTC) the > Congressional Internet Caucus Academy hosts a panel "Blockchain Is > Revolutionizing Your Digital Identity And Government Can Lead The Way" at > Rayburn House in Washington DC. Blockchain technology is m" > > > [image: Livestream] On > *Thursday December 5 2019* at *12pm EST* (17:00 UTC) the *Congressional > Internet Caucus Academy * hosts a panel "*Blockchain > Is Revolutionizing Your Digital Identity And Government Can Lead The Way > *" > at Rayburn House in Washington DC. Blockchain technology is maturing > rapidly and is opening new possibilities for innovation across spectrums. > For example, digital identity initiatives such as *ID2020* > , Workday's *Digital Credentials > *, or even the US Government who have published a *draft NIST > report *. With the promise of transformative > impacts comes higher expectations on efficiency, privacy, and security. > Congressional policy can play a key role in spurring the technology by > creating an underlying legal framework that supports its use. > > Speakers: *Tiffany Angulo*, Legislative Director for Rep. David > Schweikert; *Dan Bachenheimer*, Unique Identity Services, Accenture; *James > Cross*, VP Product Strategy, Workday; *Amy Davine Kim*, Chief Policy > Officer, Chamber of Digital Commerce; *Dr. James Shook*, Mathematician, > Computer Security Division, NIST. Moderator: *Lydia Beyoud*, Reporter > Bloomberg Law. > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsocietyblockchainic > * > > *VIEW ON NETCAUCUSAC PERISCOPE: https://www.pscp.tv/NetCaucusAC/ > * > > *TWITTER: #BlockchainIC @NetCaucusAC* > > > *Permalink* > https://isoc.live/11563/ > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 18:12:46 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <560413427.12834967.1576192366822@mail.yahoo.com> Dear All,  I also second the ammendment proposed by Sylvain, especially conditions for the future bidders.ICANN should prepare criteria for the stewardship of these Registries to remain in the not for profit organizations.  Best Regards  Imran Ahmed Shah .  On Friday, 13 December 2019, 02:01:24 GMT+5, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : Hi all, Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your consideration. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline === Many thanks dear Ayden. To:     Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN Cc:    Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations. ...{i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which provides a service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for illustration :  “The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be constituted by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet community which is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to commercial's or for-profit entities).” In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial error ; though, understandable because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and members of the 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which provides a service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a need to preferably rephrased like this :  “The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is intended to be constituted by non-governmental organizations.” Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements.   We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender.  ...good advice/request ! The tone is well measured. Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above :  "...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate itself from the PIR, in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing model." Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] ...good piece ! Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, ...i firmly oppose this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency with the fundamental logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this draft. If EC becomes, suddently, a non-profit (Beneficial Corp ???), it would be great to recommend it...not before !  ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by the 'dealer' of the PIR : [...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids during the 2002 .ORG registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that the ISC (Internet Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : ‘too much non-profit !’ And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit company. [...] ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative :  “In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47  & 01.48 [*][**], we firmly recommend that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that tender process.” “In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the non-commercial Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG registry (via a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please act accordingly.”__[*]: see section D.1 & D.2 [**]: as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR.  This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this letter. It's not about that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, i can formulate as follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the development of the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not only a single stakeholder in the Internet community... We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR.  Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work.  Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. About the Internet Governance Caucus [[Description to go here]]]    [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en see section D.1 & D.2 [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 ...what a great find ! [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ [8] Netherlands (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm  [17] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. [18] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 Done ! thanks. Shalom,--sb.   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: I support that too. Best, Niels On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: 100% in support. WISDOM DONKOR President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation [...] On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote:Dear all, In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Is there support for this proposal? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- [...] Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 [...] --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Dec 12 18:31:29 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:31:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?VIDEO=3A_Internet_Society_2020_Action_Plan?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=E2=80=93_Special_Community_Forum_=E2=80=93_December_11_2019?= Message-ID: A mildly edited version (no chat) of Wednesday's webinar on the new Action Plan. The big takeaway is that the forthcoming year's efforts will be focused on eight projects - https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2020/projects/ - in which members can immediately engage with by visiting the member portal and updating project section on the preferences tab on their profile . ISOC Live posted: "On December 11 2019 the Internet Society held a Special Community Forum to launch its 2020 Action Plan. Presenters included Andrew Sullivan, President & CEO, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Implementation; Joseph Lorenzo Hal" On *December 11 2019* the *Internet Society * held a *Special Community Forum * to launch its *2020 Action Plan *. Presenters included *Andrew Sullivan*, President & CEO, *Rinalia Abdul Rahim*, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Implementation; *Joseph Lorenzo Hall*, Senior Vice President, Strong Internet, and *Jane Coffin*, Senior Advisor to the CEO, Connectivity & Infrastructure. A Q&A session was moderated by *Joyce Dogniez*, Vice President Community Engagement and Development. Finally, the *winners * of the *2019 Chapterthon * were announced. *VIEW ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/NxmObUQtUoQ * *SLIDES: https://isoc.live/isoc/2019-12-11_ISOC_2020_Action_Plan.pdf * *TWITTER: #2020actionplan * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11585/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 12 23:28:41 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 23:28:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 13 05:13:03 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:13:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for the feedback! We planned to submit the letter today, so here is the text we'll use. Someone also asked how many members there are. I'll find out and get back to you. Best Sheetal *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* *Vision* *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all.* *Mission* *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* Best Sheetal On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 12:32, Bill Woodcock wrote: > I’m with Jacqueline... if there’s a definition (individuals) and it fits > (it does), use it rather than trying to characterize the second-order > characteristic of what kinds of organizations those individuals work for. > > Individuals are stakeholders. There’s no need to search further for > relevance. > > -Bill > > > On Dec 11, 2019, at 15:29, Jacqueline Morris > wrote: > >  > Hi Sheetal > Might it not be better to describe the membership exactly as it has been, > aka as it is on the website? > That is: > "The members of IGC are individuals, acting in (their) personal capacity, > who subscribe to the charter of the caucus", and then list the items from > the charter that we subscribe to? That way there is less drift in our > description over time... > > Regards > Jacqueline Morris > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 2:37 pm Sheetal Kumar, > wrote: > >> Hi Ayden, >> >> Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members of >> IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the >> charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as >> far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not >> afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a >> longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include >> a link to the website. >> >> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to >> promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda >> setting and decision making processes. These members include >> representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >> around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful >>> to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our >>> statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I >>> wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have >>> not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have >>> the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I >>> would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description >>> if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> ==== >>> >>> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >>> >>> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and >>> individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in >>> Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our >>> members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >>> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >>> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >>> following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 03:29:47 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Re-Organization of CSCG for dotORG perspective In-Reply-To: <774805793.7456862.1575266650352@mail.yahoo.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> <774805793.7456862.1575266650352@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1704382121.7503352.1575275387745@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sheetal and Bruna, the IGC CoCos I would strongly suggest to reinstate the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) for dotORG perspective,unite the coalition partners and add new partners e.g. Access Now, EuroDIG, Diplo Foundation (who has been part of the .rg discussion at IGC session at IGF2019) in CSCG and initiate "Stop the Sale of dotORG to non-Public Interest entities". Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  Consultant/ Advisor [TLDians.com][Urdu Internet Council] On Monday, 2 December 2019, 11:04:34 GMT+5, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: I also agree for the issuance of strong statement form CS (initiated by IGC, endorsed by APC and other coalition partners, e.g. Access Now). I personally suggest that our statement should insist on 'reversal of the transaction/ deal', and 'not to discuss or address the mechanism of handling CS concerns by the commercial entity'. In order to stop current process of due-diligence, CS have to intervene immediately without waiting for findings of due-diligence process. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  Consultant/ Advisor TLDiansUrdu Internet Council On Monday, 2 December 2019, 09:23:42 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: Agree with Brett Parminder and others who suggest a statement might be a better output than questions. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Bill Woodcock" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Imran Ahmed Shah" ; "IGCaucus" Sent: 2/12/2019 12:28:59 PM Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell > > >>  On Dec 2, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>  Or given the numbers involved if the organisation buying a .org can show a 501c3 or equivalent certification that says it is a registered non profit in its country of origin give them the domain free >> >>  Bill the domainers whatever you like I won’t lose any sleep over it > >Yes, exactly. > >                                -Bill > --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 13 07:51:42 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:51:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have purposefully refrained from commenting on the issue until now but wish to be on record for wholeheartedly supporting and endorsing George's comments and view on the matter. There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake. >From within ICANN, the global community has to review the PDP and content in terms of making it mandatory to require Express written consent from all the supporting organisations, advisory committees that the re-selling of what was initially conferred as a "public interest commodity" is not commercially exploited to the extent where it harms global public interest. Sala On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 4:29 am George Sadowsky, wrote: > 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 > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 13 10:45:00 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:45:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed Description of the Internet Governance Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am with Jacqueline on this. Members are individuals in their personal capacity. Although, there is nothing stopping the evolution of the community to something more as Ayden and Parminder mention within the text and edits. To be functional, there has to be room.and ambit to evolve. On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 10:13 am Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for the feedback! We planned to submit the letter today, so here is > the text we'll use. Someone also asked how many members there are. I'll > find out and get back to you. > > Best > Sheetal > > *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, > acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC > is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* > > *Vision* > *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of > the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally > agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, > and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet > governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. > Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, > will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal > opportunity and freedom for all.* > *Mission* > *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum > for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to > provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, > policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide > a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and > influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* > > > Best > Sheetal > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 12:32, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> I’m with Jacqueline... if there’s a definition (individuals) and it fits >> (it does), use it rather than trying to characterize the second-order >> characteristic of what kinds of organizations those individuals work for. >> >> Individuals are stakeholders. There’s no need to search further for >> relevance. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> On Dec 11, 2019, at 15:29, Jacqueline Morris >> wrote: >> >>  >> Hi Sheetal >> Might it not be better to describe the membership exactly as it has been, >> aka as it is on the website? >> That is: >> "The members of IGC are individuals, acting in (their) personal >> capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus", and then list the >> items from the charter that we subscribe to? That way there is less drift >> in our description over time... >> >> Regards >> Jacqueline Morris >> >> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 2:37 pm Sheetal Kumar, >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ayden, >>> >>> Thank you so much for putting this together! Just to note, the members >>> of IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the >>> charter of the caucus (see: https://igcaucus.org/membership/). Also, as >>> far as I understand the coalition came into being around the WSIS, not >>> afterwards. I've amended the text to reflect this - but if a >>> longer-standing member can advise that would be great. Also, we can include >>> a link to the website. >>> >>> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of members who wish to >>> promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance agenda >>> setting and decision making processes. These members include >>> representatives of civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >>> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >>> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >>> around the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 18:25, Ayden Férdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I mentioned in my previous email to this list that it might be helpful >>>> to affix a short description of who 'we' are so that the recipients of our >>>> statement, if it is sent, better understand who has written to them. I >>>> wanted to propose the following text, with the very big caveat that I have >>>> not been subscribed to this mailing list for very long, so I may well have >>>> the history wrong and not fully understand how this list came to be. I >>>> would appreciate it if you could keep me honest by editing this description >>>> if I do have something incorrect! Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> ==== >>>> >>>> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >>>> >>>> *The Internet Governance Caucus is a coalition of organizations and >>>> individuals who wish to promote global public interest objectives in >>>> Internet governance agenda setting and decision making processes. Our >>>> members include civil liberties groups, universities, think tanks, free >>>> software groups, ICT development organizations, and a broad collection of >>>> other actors dedicated to the public interest. The coalition was formed >>>> following the first World Summit on the Information Society in 2003.* >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 13 10:53:52 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:53:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had shared their input on this statement. I've pasted below what we have at present. I apologise if I have missed any edits or failed to address any concerns - if so, please can you advise. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ==== To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. About the Internet Governance Caucus The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC is guided by its vision and mission, included below. Vision The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. Mission The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:11 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > small tweak suggested for last paragraph > > Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that [you have] ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ayden Férdeline" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "parminder" ; "Imran Ahmed Shah" ; "governance at lists.riseup.net" > Sent: 12/12/2019 5:15:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for all the friendly amendments. >> >> I want to make sure that I have captured all of them. >> >> Please find below attached an updated version of our proposed statement to send to the ISOC Board. >> >> I would also suggest that we affix a short paragraph, to the very end, explaining who the Internet Governance Caucus is and what we represent. I will send some proposed language under separate cover so we can wordsmith this separately. This, I hope, will address the comment asking who 'we' is in the context of this letter. >> >> Thank you again. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ========== >> >> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >> >> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >> >> We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >> >> ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. >> >> About the Internet Governance Caucus >> >> [Description to go here] >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:04 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, this is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase pressure! >>> >>> Please provide your views on the following text by COP tomorrow, 12 December. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. >>> >>> In particular, you may want to consider the following questions >>> >>> 1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, can you provide a rationale and some suggested text? >>> 2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you provide a rationale? >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>> >>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. >>> >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. >>> >>> We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >>> >>> We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >>> >>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. >>> >>> This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >>> >>> ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> agree, parminder >>>> >>>> On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and necessary... >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline [](mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. >>>>> >>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. >>>>> >>>>> We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. >>>>> >>>>> We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >>>>> >>>>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and transparent about major decisions. >>>>> >>>>> This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter. >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder [](mailto:parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Imran, very useful.. >>>>>> >>>>>> So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial astuteness.... >>>>>> >>>>>> It cannot get more absurd that this.. >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>>>> There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was leaving in 2002. >>>>>>> At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder [](mailto:parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From those who know I request response to this question: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so how much? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD should provide available evidence of support from across the global Internet community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya [](mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article <[CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com](mailto:CAJjTEvFXJ%2BZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p%2BO_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com)> you write: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >>>>>>>>> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear John, >>>>>>>> ...have you used it yourselves ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : *By and For* ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> R's, >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Fri Dec 13 14:26:08 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:26:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Looks great to me! Thanks for navigating, Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:54 AM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had shared their > input on this statement. I've pasted below what we have at present. I > apologise if I have missed any edits or failed to address any concerns - if > so, please can you advise. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > ==== > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its > charter.* > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, > acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC > is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* > > *Vision* > > *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of > the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally > agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, > and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet > governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. > Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, > will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal > opportunity and freedom for all.* > > *Mission* > > *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum > for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to > provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, > policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide > a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and > influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:11 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > small tweak suggested for last paragraph > > *Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and > openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that [you have] ISOC has > taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon > ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw > from selling PIR, so to honor its charter.* > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ayden Férdeline" > To: "Sheetal Kumar" > Cc: "parminder" ; "Imran Ahmed Shah" < > ias_pk at yahoo.com>; "governance at lists.riseup.net" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> > Sent: 12/12/2019 5:15:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > > Hi all, > > Thanks for all the friendly amendments. > > I want to make sure that I have captured all of them. > > Please find below attached an updated version of our proposed statement to > send to the ISOC Board. > > I would also suggest that we affix a short paragraph, to the very end, > explaining who the Internet Governance Caucus is and what we represent. I > will send some proposed language under separate cover so we can wordsmith > this separately. This, I hope, will address the comment asking who 'we' is > in the context of this letter. > > Thank you again. > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > ========== > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its > charter.* > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *[Description to go here]* > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:04 PM, Sheetal Kumar < > sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > The public outcry against the sale is clearly picking up momentum, and > having results. With thanks to Ayden for proposing the following text, this > is a timely moment for us to add our voices and increase pressure! > > Please provide your views on the following text by *COP tomorrow, 12 > December*. I suggest we try and send the letter on Friday, 13 December. > > In particular, you may want to consider the following questions > > 1) Is there anything you think you should be added to the text? If so, can > you provide a rationale and some suggested text? > 2) Is there anything you think should be removed? If so, can you provide a > rationale? > > Thank you! > > Best > Sheetal. > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping > Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would > lose 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to > publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and > transparent about major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 07:01, parminder wrote: > >> agree, parminder >> On 10/12/19 9:10 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Thanks Ayden, I support the additional lines, these are important and >> necessary... >> >> Regards >> >> Imran >> >> On Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 19:59:47 GMT+5, Ayden Férdeline >> wrote: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> In response to comments in this thread and new developments today, I have >> proposed some further edits to the statement that we could potentially send >> to the ISOC Board. Please find below. Note that key changes are in red. >> Thanks! >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> -- >> >> *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that >> Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry >> (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >> Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >> ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >> commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of >> its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies >> with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and >> users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs >> there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of >> ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >> and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC >> legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping >> Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would >> lose 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.* >> >> *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >> September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >> November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not >> just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * >> >> *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more >> transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. We ask that ISOC commit to >> publishing on its website all 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.* >> >> *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who >> promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be open and >> transparent about major decisions. * >> >> *This is a major decision that will result in a significant change, for >> ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a >> human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation >> with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. * >> >> *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >> reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home >> for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and >> ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to >> reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC >> espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations >> with Ethos Capital, to withdraw from selling PIR, and to honor its charter.* >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 9, 2019 2:29 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> Thanks Imran, very useful.. >> >> So a community asset given to ISOC for free, nay with a $ 5 million >> subsidy, for safe keeping and management on behalf of the community is >> suddenly declared by ISOC to just be a sterile financial asset -- with no >> community implications whatsoever -- that it is selling off to a newly >> formed for profit entity in order to maintain and augment its funding. And >> we are supposed to stay quiet or just applaud ISOC's financial >> astuteness.... >> >> It cannot get more absurd that this.. >> >> parminder >> On 09/12/19 12:19 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder, >> There were 11 bidders. ICANN evaluated 11 proposals when VeriSign was >> leaving in 2002. >> At that time, the bidding criteria was different, the bidders were >> quoting their quality of services, as there was objections on VeriSign >> Support. Secondly, bidders were offering the cost of their fee for services >> per domain (registration and/or renewal). ISOC was not the lowest bidder. >> >> No, ISOC/PIR did not have to pay anything. In compensation from ICANN, >> VeriSign given seed money (Endowment) to ISOC/PIR for capacity building >> and Registry handling and support 2.6 million domain names. >> >> Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> On Monday, 9 December 2019, 09:44:57 GMT+5, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> From those who know I request response to this question: >> >> Was ISOC given the .org registry as a result of an auction (apart from >> other evaluation criteria) or not, meaning did ISOC pay anything, and if so >> how much? >> >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> On 09/12/19 3:27 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> >> Indeed John, this criteria is interesting, particularly number 6, which I >> have pasted below. I do not believe Ethos Capital has a "level of support >> for the proposal from .ORG registrants," but the Internet Society did, and >> that is why .ORG was assigned to them over other bidders. >> >> *6. Level of support for the proposal from .org registrants.* >> >> *Demonstrated support among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly >> those actually using .org domain names for noncommercial purposes, will be >> a factor in evaluation of the proposals. Noncommercial registrants do not >> have uniform views about policy and management, and no single organization >> can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. There will >> likely be significant difficulties in ascertaining the level of support for >> particular .org proposals from throughout the .org registrants and >> noncommercial community. Nevertheless, proposals to operate the .org TLD >> should provide available evidence of support from across the global >> Internet community.* >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, December 8, 2019 10:49 PM, Sylvain Baya >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine a >> écrit : >> >> In article < >> CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com> you >> write: >> >> > >> >> It might be more useful to refer to the criteria used to evaluate >> the .org proposals and decide who got the registry: >> >> >> Dear John, >> ...have you used it yourselves ? >> >> https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >> >> >> ...for sure, these criteria are interesting ; but let me know if there is >> a specific criterion which contains, explicitely, the key words : **By >> and For** ? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> R's, >> John >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 13 14:39:20 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:39:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b4021yxnI6WcJXa7wDS2nDlvud2cSGzOd1ncyYj7NIxoUPX1DzmbDX180YFwAX8MrWuzaYNelnDK4VGSUXl65pDGUTRkiTOzI5SHefIjjs=@ferdeline.com> > There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake. Sure, but it has been Ethos Capital that has opted not to respond to questions and comments, and ISOC who has been far from transparent about how this deal came to be. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, December 13, 2019 1:51 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > I have purposefully refrained from commenting on the issue until now but wish to be on record for wholeheartedly supporting and endorsing George's comments and view on the matter. There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake. > > From within ICANN, the global community has to review the PDP and content in terms of making it mandatory to require Express written consent from all the supporting organisations, advisory committees that the re-selling of what was initially conferred as a "public interest commodity" is not commercially exploited to the extent where it harms global public interest. > > Sala > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 4:29 am George Sadowsky, wrote: > >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 13 14:49:22 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:49:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 wrote: > 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 > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 13 15:15:52 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:15:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks dear Ayden. Just one thing :-) ...add *inclusiveness* alongside with the recommendation for more *transparency*. Please see below (inline)... Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 4:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : > Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had shared their > input on this statement. I've pasted below what we have at present. I > apologise if I have missed any edits or failed to address any concerns - if > so, please can you advise. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > ==== > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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.* > > *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * > > *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. * > “*...the proposed sale of PIR, and we call for more inclusiveness in addition.*” Thanks. Shalom, --sb. *We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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.* > > *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. * > > *This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. * > > *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its > charter.* > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, > acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC > is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* > > *Vision* > > *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of > the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally > agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, > and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet > governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. > Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, > will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal > opportunity and freedom for all.* > > *Mission* > > *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum > for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to > provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, > policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide > a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and > influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > [...] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 13 17:56:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:56:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: <9b4021yxnI6WcJXa7wDS2nDlvud2cSGzOd1ncyYj7NIxoUPX1DzmbDX180YFwAX8MrWuzaYNelnDK4VGSUXl65pDGUTRkiTOzI5SHefIjjs=@ferdeline.com> References: <9b4021yxnI6WcJXa7wDS2nDlvud2cSGzOd1ncyYj7NIxoUPX1DzmbDX180YFwAX8MrWuzaYNelnDK4VGSUXl65pDGUTRkiTOzI5SHefIjjs=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: > Ayden, > > You are right so far, but now Ethos Capital is wiliing to answer questions -- next Thursday. in fairness, let's listen, so that this discussion can become more fact based. George > > On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake. > > Sure, but it has been Ethos Capital that has opted not to respond to questions and comments, and ISOC who has been far from transparent about how this deal came to be. > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, December 13, 2019 1:51 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> I have purposefully refrained from commenting on the issue until now but wish to be on record for wholeheartedly supporting and endorsing George's comments and view on the matter. There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness sake. >> >> From within ICANN, the global community has to review the PDP and content in terms of making it mandatory to require Express written consent from all the supporting organisations, advisory committees that the re-selling of what was initially conferred as a "public interest commodity" is not commercially exploited to the extent where it harms global public interest. >> >> Sala >> >> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 4:29 am George Sadowsky, > wrote: >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sat Dec 14 14:26:46 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:26:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] RESTREAM: Internet Consolidation: What Lies Beneath the Application Layer? @ChathamHouse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is now a transcription available of this. It may be especially helpful for those who might struggle with Ms, Cobbe's brogue! The video will be restreamed with updated captions at 2:30pm ET (19:30 UTC) today, Saturday 14 December. On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:01 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > The title of this event is variable. It is also "Who Runs the Internet: > Internet Consolidation and Control" however the topic is the same, either > way. One wonders when Andrew Sullivan last slept in his own bed! > > > ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday 10 December 2019 at 18:00 UTC (1pm EST) > Chatham House hosts a discussion 'Internet Consolidation: What Lies Beneath > the Application Layer?' in London. In recent years, there has been a > growing debate around the influence of a few large internet" > > New post on *ISOC LIVE NOTICEBOARD* > > [image: Livestream] > On *Tuesday > 10 December 2019* at *18:00 UTC* (1pm EST) *Chatham House > * hosts a discussion '*Internet > Consolidation: What Lies Beneath the Application Layer?* > ' > in London. In recent years, there has been a growing debate around the > influence of a few large internet technology companies on the internet’s > infrastructure and over the popular applications and social media platforms > that we use every day. The internet which was once widely viewed as a > collective platform for limitless, permissionless innovation, competition > and growth, is now increasingly viewed as a consolidated environment > dominated by a few. Such market dominance threatens to undermine the > internet’s fundamental benefits as a distributed network in which no single > entity has control. > > The panel will examine the risks of consolidation throughout the > internet’s technology stack such as the impact on complex supply chains > that support applications, including cloud provisions, ‘as a service’. It > will also explore the potential benefits, for example, when building out > essential infrastructure to support faster and cheaper internet services in > developing economies, consolidation can create economies of scale that > bring the resource-intensive building blocks of the internet economy within > the reach of new start-ups and innovators. The panel will provide an > interdisciplinary perspective exploring the relationship between > consolidation and evolutions in the internet infrastructure as well as > unpacking its policy implications. > > Participants > *Andrew Sullivan*, President and CEO, Internet Society > *Jennifer Cobbe*, Research Associate, Department of Computer Science and > Technology, University of Cambridge > *Jesse Sowell*, Assistant Professor, Department of International Affairs, > Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University > Chair: *Emily Taylo*r, Associate Fellow, International Security, Chatham > House, Editor, Journal of Cyber Policy > > *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: > https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetconsolidation > * > > *TWITTER: #InternetConsolidation *@ChathamHouse > @SullivanISOC @jennifercobbe @jsowell78 #CHEvents > > *Permalink*: > https://isoc.live/11567/ > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 16 03:33:49 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:33:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST MON/TUE: Malawi Internet Governance Forum #mwigf19 Message-ID: Malawi is one of the few African countries without an ISOC Chapter. Hopefully that will change soon!. The local IGF, however, is now in its 5th year. We are yet to establish a robust connection for the livestream, but hope is alive. ISOC Live posted: "On Monday & Tuesday 16-17 December 2019 the 2019 Malawi Internet Governance Forum (MWIGF) will convene in Lilongwe, Malawi. The Malawi IGF is a multistakeholder forum that has been held since 2014 to discuss issues of Internet governance that affect M" [image: livestream] On *Monday & Tuesday 16-17 December 201*9 the 2019 *Malawi Internet Governance Forum * (MWIGF) will convene in Lilongwe, Malawi. The Malawi IGF is a multistakeholder forum that has been held since 2014 to discuss issues of Internet governance that affect Malawi and the region as a whole. *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/mwigf19 * *AGENDA: https://isoc.live/nri/mwigf19.pdf (UTC+2)* *FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/igfmalawi/ * *TWITTER: MWIGF19 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11594/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 1 12:42:28 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 23:12:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: i was wondering if there was any chance that IGC, like many other key CS groups and people involved with IG issues, like Access and Sir Tim Berner Lee, have done, could develop a position seeking the stopping of .org's sale... As for asking ISOC and ICANN some questions, I and some others here are on ISOC policy elist and there have been hundreds of emails with questions that have been mostly banally answered by ISOC reps, and so I can assure you that our questions will not be much more fruitful...On the other hand, an unambiguous position of IGC against the sale of .org will carry some weight parminder On 30/11/19 5:38 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you > think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as > part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive > approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the > questions. See below: > > /When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process:   > / > / > / > /- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? > - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights > of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale > of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public > interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society > groups in the world? > - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in > missions of "public interest around the world?" > - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital/ > > Best > Sheetal/ > / > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock > a écrit : > > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note > that the > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about > to be *eliminated* by their > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > Why ? > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the > non-commercial [1] world is under > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in > .ORG registrations they are > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > None of the above parses.  Please try again, with simpler > construction.  You can break it out into as many sentences as > you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly > one thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a > constructive conversation with you. > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > Shalom, > --sb. >   > > >                                 -Bill > > > > -- > > -- > Best Regards !                          > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | > > Subscribe to Mailing List : > > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«/Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ > soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!/» > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «/Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme > soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!/» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 03:42:09 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 08:42:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? Message-ID: A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 05:22:38 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:22:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice Message-ID: Dear Fellow IGC Members, It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: Mrs Nazia Shah Flat 25E Askari 1, Sadder Cantt Sarfraz Rafiqui Road Lahore, Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 05:31:26 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:31:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Thank you for sharing this, I'm shocked. He was just responding to messages a few days ago, it's so surreal. Sending my deepest condolences to his family. Best, -Michael On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 05:33:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Katim S. Touray" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:33:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is very sad news, Salanieta. May Allah grant him eternal Jannah! Ameen! Katim On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in Mon Dec 16 05:42:53 2019 From: amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in (Amrita) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:12:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <021601d5b3fd$9270a010$b751e030$@in> A very sad and shocking news. May he rest in peace. We could perhaps take the help of ISOC Islamabad or other civil society members from Pakistan to send our condolence message. Regards, Amrita From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:53 PM To: governance Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice Dear Fellow IGC Members, It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: Mrs Nazia Shah Flat 25E Askari 1, Sadder Cantt Sarfraz Rafiqui Road Lahore, Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 16 05:43:17 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:13:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please convey my condolences to his family.  May he rest in eternal peace. From: on behalf of ""Katim S. Touray" (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 16 December 2019 at 4:04 PM To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Cc: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice This is very sad news, Salanieta. May Allah grant him eternal Jannah! Ameen! Katim On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: Dear Fellow IGC Members, It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: Mrs Nazia Shah Flat 25E Askari 1, Sadder Cantt Sarfraz Rafiqui Road Lahore, Pakistan --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 05:51:36 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (williams.deirdre (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 06:51:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20191216105136.5660757.54467.86663@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 05:50:39 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:50:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Thanks very much for sharing this information. So very sad and heart broken, he spoke on our session on electricity and community network in Berlin. May his soul rest in peace. To the wife and children's, May the good Lord be their shield. My regards to the family. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 10:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Dec 16 06:02:01 2019 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:02:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20191216110201.GE31975@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Sad and shocking news indeed. Just on Friday I was emailing with Imran about IGC tech stuff without any hint of problems in his health, and now he's gone. A great loss not only to his family but to all of us. Tapani On Dec 16 10:22, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 06:22:03 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:22:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 1:52 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : > I have purposefully refrained from commenting on the issue until now but > wish to be on record for wholeheartedly supporting and endorsing George's > comments and view on the matter. > Dear Salanieta, It's always normal & acceptable to share a position ; and yes, i understand the need of a lawyer to defend, even, a blatant culprit. Is it why the devil exists... :-/ ...for George's position : he sees no *ethical problem* with the sale of the 'Public Interest Registry'. That's a problem when you consider the powerful speeches he always deliver. His view seems to be biaised and more now that he is in campaign to be elected as a Trustee (where there is a broken 'Trust Anchor' issue still not addressed). Maybe not him, but it's worth imagining that someones would decide to run to the InternetSociety.ORG BoT election ; only to have the ability to be near to the announced $1.135 B... ...please see the full list of issues below. ~°~ ...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 (or Let's go for a Free commons PIR - cPIR ?) • (Conflicting) Rejuvenation Process for a better Future of the InternetSociety.ORG • (Conflicting) Impacts in the Future of the Internet (FotI) •— ~°~ There is a Latin phrase that comes to mind, and it is "audi alteram partem" > the right to be heard before judgment is passed is critical for fairness > sake. > OK, if there is a stakeholder which decides to hide all what it's possible (not just allowed) to hide... then the above latin phrase seems to not be reasonably applicable. To be clear here : i'm following multiple threads around this same topic, in various mailing lists, and i'm not sure to have heard (read) that someone (opponent) have decided to not listen to EC's arguments... Even when someones know that EC has already shared some acceptable and some bad promises and that there is a huge doubt that they have anything new to add...{someones have already send their questions and for me i will probably read the record, after the call. GOD Will!} The core difficulty with George's argumentation is that it *seems* (i may be wrong though) to assume that : •— • the opponents don't want to hear EC's arguments ; • the position of the opponents is not mature enough ; • the opposition is 'only' justifies by some emotional consequences of the distance between InternetSociety.ORG's members and Trustees...suppress that distance and you have your fix... • the opponents don't really understand what's at stake for the Future of the Internet(Society.ORG) | FotI ; • they only focus on the FotP (Future of the PIR) • ... •— In facts, his strategy is a bit different to the 'dealers' strategy ; but they share something. Where George's messages are always starting by acknowledging various obvious issues related to the troubling relationship between InternetSociety.ORG's management/BoT and the members/chapters before concluding that the PIR sale was the best way forward (if he was a BoT member, he would have aproved it); the 'dealers' reactions and strongest proponent's argumentations are denying straightly always those of the opponents. >From within ICANN, the global community has to review the PDP and content > in terms of making it mandatory to require Express written consent from all > the supporting organisations, advisory committees that the re-selling of > what was initially conferred as a "public interest commodity" is not > commercially exploited to the extent where it harms global public interest. > Thanks to this ! ...your argument above is mostly in opposition to the position (in topic) of our dear George :-) Just saying ! Happy & Blessed monday ! Shalom, --sb. > > Sala > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 4:29 am George Sadowsky, > wrote: > >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Mon Dec 16 06:35:30 2019 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:35:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <021601d5b3fd$9270a010$b751e030$@in> References: <021601d5b3fd$9270a010$b751e030$@in> Message-ID: <75932B92-7257-4004-9D16-7400921F3B6A@isoc.org> Dear All – An update for you. The ISOC Islamabad Chapter is preparing a note. ISOC Staff in Pakistan have already called the family and expressed their condolences, and are liaising with the Chapter. Naveed Haq (haq at isoc.org) is working on this from ISOC’s side if you would like to know more. He is included here. With kind regards, Jane From: on behalf of Amrita Reply-To: Amrita Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 5:43 AM To: "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" , "governance at lists.riseup.net" Subject: RE: [governance] Funeral Notice A very sad and shocking news. May he rest in peace. We could perhaps take the help of ISOC Islamabad or other civil society members from Pakistan to send our condolence message. Regards, Amrita From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:53 PM To: governance Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice Dear Fellow IGC Members, It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: Mrs Nazia Shah Flat 25E Askari 1, Sadder Cantt Sarfraz Rafiqui Road Lahore, Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 03:46:26 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 08:46:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5Barticle=5D_Internet_Society_CEO=3A_Most?= =?UTF-8?Q?_people_don=27t_care_about_the_=2Eorg_sell-off_=E2=80=93_and_no?= =?UTF-8?Q?thing_short_of_a_court_order_will_stop_it?= Message-ID: This interview in The Register with the CEO of the Internet Society makes for interesting reading and suggests to me that a stronger show of force is required to demonstrate that concerns about the sale of PIR are sincere and genuinely held. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/29/isoc_ceo_dot_org_sale/ "I think claims that there has been an outpouring of support against the sale are overblown. If you look there is a relatively small number of people complaining. We may be overstating the feeling; most people haven't noticed. Most people don't care one way or another." Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Mon Dec 16 06:44:42 2019 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:44:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <20191216110201.GE31975@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20191216110201.GE31975@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: This news is ugly in all aspects. As Michael and Tapani had observed, Imran had been talking energetically here till the few days ago in question. He had voluntarily taken up many tasks to move IGC forward. I'm still imagining the new feet that will truly fit into the big shoes he'd left behind. I really morn with Nazia, Laraib and Muhammed and pray they always find the courage and all it takes to live successfully after such irrepairable loss. Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 12:02 PM Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Sad and shocking news indeed. Just on Friday I was emailing with Imran > about IGC tech stuff without any hint of problems in his health, and > now he's gone. > > A great loss not only to his family but to all of us. > > Tapani > > On Dec 16 10:22, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" ( > governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden > passing > > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his > wife > > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His > advocacy > > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > > address is as follows: > > > > Mrs Nazia Shah > > Flat 25E > > Askari 1, > > Sadder Cantt > > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > > Lahore, Pakistan > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 06:47:44 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:47:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Le lun. 16 déc. 2019 11:23 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > ...what a sad surprise, dear Salanieta !!! May his soul rest in peace. All my deep condolences to the family, friends and colleagues. May THE Almighty LORD keep all them. Shalom, --sb. Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 08:04:24 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:04:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for breaking Imran funeral notice. I got the message the day Imram died which I notified the tech team but we were very careful as to make sure the news is from the reliable source. His death was very schoked to me as we chatted some minutes before he had the heart attack. Well, thanks for the confirmation and I urge the IGC community to send condolences to Imran family. May his soul rest in peace. Regards. On Mon, 16 Dec. 2019, 11:23 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 08:08:00 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:08:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a shocking. Imran was instrumental in many ways for bringing IGC back up on its feet. A huge loss for our community. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:48 AM Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Le lun. 16 déc. 2019 11:23 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : > >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> > > ...what a sad surprise, dear Salanieta !!! > > May his soul rest in peace. > > All my deep condolences to the family, friends and colleagues. > May THE Almighty LORD keep all them. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife >> that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was >> buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >> Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> >> Lahore, Pakistan >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 16 08:10:50 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:10:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 08:18:05 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Shreedeep Rayamajhi (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:03:05 +0545 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very sad to hear the news. In this time of sorry, our prayers are with the family. 🙏🙏🙏🙏 On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 4:08 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Dec 16 08:29:21 2019 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:29:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> Dear Colleagues, This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very effectively in all the areas of his interest. Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this irreparable loss. Such is life! Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 16 09:17:01 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:47:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran  but his efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through whoever is able to make contact with his family. parminder On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Colleagues,  > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran > was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. > We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for > his untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would > represent very effectively in all the areas of his interest.  > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for > this irreparable loss.  > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > --  > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden   > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died >> just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >>  Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. >> He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my >> heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 >> years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son >> Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet >> Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being >> President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations >> he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal >> of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many >> patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, >> development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> Lahore, Pakistan > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 885 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From hananeb at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 16 09:55:40 2019 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Very sad news and heartbreaking for his family and us all. May he Rest In Peace. Hanane Boujemi On Monday, December 16, 2019, parminder wrote: > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his > efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through > whoever is able to make contact with his family. > > parminder > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was > an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will > agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring > efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very > effectively in all the areas of his interest. > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this > irreparable loss. > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > > Lahore, Pakistan > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 10:18:22 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Fouad Bajwa (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:18:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: May his soul rest in peace. On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 7:56 pm Hanane Boujemi, wrote: > Very sad news and heartbreaking for his family and us all. May he Rest In > Peace. > > Hanane Boujemi > > On Monday, December 16, 2019, parminder wrote: > >> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >> >> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >> >> parminder >> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >> >> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this >> irreparable loss. >> >> Such is life! >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >> Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> >> Lahore, Pakistan >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 03:55:36 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 14:25:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Hi Mwenda, > > My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what > they did. Take expert advice  > > Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but > nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this > offer came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert > advice, The advice was Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly available... What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert advice exists. > 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This is especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be a global body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations among US insiders? > 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos > had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and > it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to > negotiate. Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your logic. ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule exists as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a public or community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule pre-established for it bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling business. But this does not mean that it can avoid observing the normal good practice, especially as involving a public or community asset, which most people take PIR to be, and is also indicated in its name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but its secret sale of .org is absolutely against the spirit of community trusteeship that it is supposed to embody. It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek accountability from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society organisations like Girl Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it will  be greatly amiss if we do not take any stand in this matter. parminder > > Joly > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva > > wrote: > > If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as > the best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few > overheads at $1.3b is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, > the return on investment will be in less than 10 years. A > simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the value of .org way > beyond the $2b mark > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein > wrote: > > Folks > > I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the > most skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some > important harm. That said, I have written they are honorable > and not corrupt.  > > When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the > below, including "If I were on the board, I might have voted > for the deal." Reasonable people _might_ decide that $1B+ for > an organization committed to the Internet for everybody is > enough to balance the harms we've discussed.  > > I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on > this list are likewise honorable, even if I think their > positions wrong. There are crooks in this world, including > many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother with this > list or the ISOC board.   > > It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission > and open internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living > up to our principles. If you're not an ISOC member, do join > and choose a chapter. If there's no chapter where you are, the > New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our members are not > local. > > My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether > Massive MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, > please ask. (It is, per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's > really going on in 5G.  > > I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a > session on IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely > adopted, IoT devices need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on > that panel would cost more than that.  > > https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down > > > Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal > Goes Down > > > Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at > https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of reporters, 3 ISOC > Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are > strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just > revealed it would get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors > for .org. That is enough money that honorable people have > decided the damage to the Internet from the deal should be > overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks > or even delays. > > If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've > been among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and > many other key details were totally secret. I would have > demanded much more information and public discussion.  > > I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to > heal the rift with the chapters and restore the public > perception of ISOC.  > > https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving > > > IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving > > > "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & > ISOC-NY board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, > I do not believe the IGF would disappear. If something were to > happen, or if in the future it was not renewed by the UN > General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a bottom-up > manner as an international place to bring the various groups > together. I also said that I considered the National and > Regional Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF > because they brought "Internet Governance" to the national and > regional level."  > > The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is > talk, talk, talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to > have direct results. Monika Ermert, the best-informed > commentator on "Internet Governance," >  writes, > "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of > the crisis, which has been around for a few years because it > only debates and does not act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist > dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes a highly chaotic > program. > > From the beginning, governments did not want to give away > power. I've reported that the non-government participants have > come overwhelmingly from the US and allies, as well as some > others in general agreement. The non-government attendees > rarely spoke from the point of view of the global south, which > now represents the strong majority of Internet users. > Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally > representative group in charge, presumably the ITU.  > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 11:31:42 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael ILISHEBO (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:31:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It's heartbreaking to lose such a devoted person. He was a good man who wanted to see IGC succeed. Condolences to his family. -- *Michael L. Ilishebo,* *Lusaka, Zambia* *Digital Forensic Analyst -* Zambia Police Service* | * *UN IGF MAG Member ( 2017 -19) | AU IGF MAG Member (2019 - 20)* *ICANN* GAC PSWG Member * | **ICANN *Fellow/Mentor |* Alumni - *African School on Internet Governance (2014) Work Email : * ilishebomichael at zambiapolice.org.zm * Contact* : +260965361255* *Social Media Handles* *Twitter: @ilishebo* *Skype: michael.ilishebo* *"walk a mile,for a while,with a smile"* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Dec 16 11:47:30 2019 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:47:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We shared some great debate with Imran on this list. He will be greatly missed. RIP brother. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 13:22, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 11:49:14 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:19:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: Imran has been active on the list until very recently. The news is unexpected. Please convey my condolences to his family. Sivasubramanian M twitter.com/shivaindia On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:59 PM Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was > an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will > agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring > efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very > effectively in all the areas of his interest. > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this > irreparable loss. > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 16 14:56:20 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:56:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting us back to a strong presence. I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "parminder" To: governance at lists.riseup.net Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and >praiseworthy. > >Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >through whoever is able to make contact with his family. > >parminder > >On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >>was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. >>We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for >>his untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would >>represent very effectively in all the areas of his interest. >> >>Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>this irreparable loss. >> >>Such is life! >> >>Best wishes and regards >> >>Shahzad >> >> >>-- >>Shahzad Ahmad >>Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >>On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>wrote: >> >>I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >> >>Ayden >> >> >>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >>>Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>>It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died >>>just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>>wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. >>>He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my >>>heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 >>>years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son >>>Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>>I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>>Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet >>>Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being >>>President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations >>>he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal >>>of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many >>>patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, >>>development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>>Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>>address is as follows: >>> >>>Mrs Nazia Shah >>>Flat 25E >>>Askari 1, >>>Sadder Cantt >>>Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>Lahore, Pakistan >> >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Mon Dec 16 15:08:40 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:08:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <642308c6-282a-ed72-29c8-b966c757035d@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Dec 16 15:16:04 2019 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:16:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A15810F-87F7-4382-AEBA-46D37640BD46@egyptig.org> This really is very sad. I’ve known Imran for just a little over 10 years, and was fond of him. My thoughts go out to his family and loved ones. Thanks for letting us know, Salanieta. Amr > On Dec 16, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 15:22:16 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:22:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support the message Aaron On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:18 Sylvain Baya, wrote: > Hi all, > > Please see my comments below (inline)... > > Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a > écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a >> statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your >> consideration. Thanks! >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> === >> > > Many thanks dear Ayden. > > *To: * *Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN* >> >> *Cc:* *Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN* >> >> *We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation >> to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos >> Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced >> that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the >> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1]* >> >> *Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for >> their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just >> domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network >> which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we >> believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made >> following consultation with impacted registrants and the global >> non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, >> which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the >> delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2]* >> >> *The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit >> organizations.* >> > > ...{*i'm not a native english though :'-(*} i think it's the Registry > which provides a > service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think > there is a > need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for > illustration : > > “ > *The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be > constituted * > > *by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet > community which * > > *is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to > commercial's or for-profit * > *entities).*” > > * In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a >> new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original >> purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as >> a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, >> article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and >> Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum >> of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to >> establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the >> non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG >> registry.”[4]* >> > > ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial > error ; though, understandable > because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and > members of the > 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... > > *The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is >> non-governmental organizations. * >> > > ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry > which provides a service > to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is > a need to preferably > rephrased like this : > > “ > *The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is intended > to be * > *constituted by non-governmental organizations.*” > > *Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR >> states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through >> non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or >> through evidence of NGO status.”[5]* >> >> *Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and >> indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial >> number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has >> sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s >> largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. >> We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 >> signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue >> statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale >> has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street >> Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade >> press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim >> Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to >> question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question >> the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We >> are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR.* >> >> *Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the >> .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its >> rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do >> the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements.* >> >> >> >> *We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for >> performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for >> public tender. * >> > > ...good advice/request ! > The tone is well measured. > > Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : > > " > *...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate > itself from the PIR, * > *in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing > model.*" > > *Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust >> Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a >> letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for >> renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent >> operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14]* >> > > ...good piece ! > > *Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of >> the tender process, * >> > > ...*i firmly oppose* this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency > with the fundamental > logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this > draft. If EC becomes, > suddently, a non-profit (*Beneficial Corp ???*), it would be great to > recommend it...not before ! > > ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by the > 'dealer' of the PIR : > > *[...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids > during the 2002 .ORG * > > *registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that > the ISC (Internet * > > *Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : > ‘too much * > *non-profit !’ * > *And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit > company. [...]* > > ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : > > “ > *In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [*][**], we > firmly recommend * > > *that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that > tender process.” * > > *“In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the > non-commercial * > > *Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG > registry (via * > *a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please > act accordingly.*” > __ > [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 < > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> > [**]: > > *as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of >> non-profits and other public interest groups. * >> > > ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. > > *However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to >> indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. * >> >>> *This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no >> track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they >> have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] * >> > > I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this letter. > It's not about > that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, > i can formulate as > follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the > development of > the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not > only a single > stakeholder in the Internet community... > > *We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many >> organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower >> registration prices for our resource-poor communities. **As you may >> remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to >> ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16]* >> > > ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. > > *If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer >> of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and >> non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >> domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and >> other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack >> of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. * >> >> *Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain >> name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG >> domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal >> rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its >> materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American >> College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, >> estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level >> domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor >> communities and hinder our good work. * >> >> *Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted >> partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture >> capital firm. * >> >> *Thank you for your time and consideration of our request.* >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> *[[Description to go here]]] * >> >> >> >> *[1] * >> *https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/* >> >> >> *[2] **https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591* >> >> >> *[3] **https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en* >> >> > > see section D.1 & D.2 < > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> > > > *[4] * >> *https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4* >> >> > > ...what a great find ! > > *[5] * >> *https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm* >> >> >> *[6] * >> *https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry* >> >> >> *[7] **https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab* >> * and * >> *https://savedotorg.org/* >> >> *[8] Netherlands (* >> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html* >> *), >> Switzerland (* >> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html* >> *), >> Portugal (* >> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html* >> >> *)* >> >> *[9] * >> *https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html* >> >> >> *[10] * >> *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* >> >> >> *[11] **https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a* >> >> >> *[12] **https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824* >> >> >> *[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: * >> *https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy* >> >> >> > < > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/author.html#start > > > > *[14] See page 10, * >> *https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf* >> >> >> *[15] On their website (**https://www.keypointsabout.org/* >> *), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is >> to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, >> which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on >> average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices >> annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains >> double in price every five years.* >> >> *[16] **https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm* >> >> > > > > *[17] Page 16, * >> *https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf* >> *.* >> >> *[18] * >> *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* >> >> >> > Done ! thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever >> lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: >> >> I support that too. >> Best, >> Niels >> On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> >> 100% in support. >> WISDOM DONKOR >> President & CEO >> Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation >> >> [...] >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline > mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. >> >> Is there support for this proposal? >> >> Best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> --- >> [...] >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Researcher and PhD Candidate >> Datactive Research Group >> University of Amsterdam >> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >> ------------------------------ >> >> [...] >> >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr at egyptig.org Mon Dec 16 15:22:39 2019 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:22:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> This sounds like a wonderful idea to me. Thanks. Amr > On Dec 16, 2019, at 4:17 PM, parminder wrote: > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through whoever is able to make contact with his family. > > parminder > > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very effectively in all the areas of his interest. >> >> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this irreparable loss. >> >> Such is life! >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: >> >> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: >>> >>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>> Flat 25E >>> Askari 1, >>> Sadder Cantt >>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>> Lahore, Pakistan >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 16:55:02 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Very good idea Parminder. I can share the email address of his daughter with the the cocos if we all agree to send a letter to his family. Regards On Mon, 16 Dec. 2019, 9:23 pm Amr Elsadr, wrote: > This sounds like a wonderful idea to me. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 4:17 PM, parminder wrote: > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his > efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through > whoever is able to make contact with his family. > > parminder > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was > an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will > agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring > efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very > effectively in all the areas of his interest. > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this > irreparable loss. > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 17:00:41 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:00:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear all, This is such sad sad news. It is indeed a good idea to send a note from IGC. As many of you noted Imran was indeed a very devoted volunteer to the idea of rejuvenating IGC, our website and mailing list and both Sheetal and myself are very thankful for all the work he dedicated to our community. I will chat with her and hopefully work on a message to his family and we can let you know once we sent it. @Akinremi Peter Taiwo it would be lovely if you could share with Sheetal and I the contact information of his family. best regards, bruna Le lun. 16 déc. 2019 à 18:56, Akinremi Peter Taiwo < governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : > Very good idea Parminder. > > I can share the email address of his daughter with the the cocos if we all > agree to send a letter to his family. > > Regards > > On Mon, 16 Dec. 2019, 9:23 pm Amr Elsadr, wrote: > >> This sounds like a wonderful idea to me. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Amr >> >> On Dec 16, 2019, at 4:17 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >> >> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >> >> parminder >> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >> >> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this >> irreparable loss. >> >> Such is life! >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >> Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> Lahore, Pakistan >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Mon Dec 2 04:05:51 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:05:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> I found it interesting as well. I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business. So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark. -Bill > On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >  > A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: > > https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 19:20:38 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:20:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Devastating news. I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en @Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and loved ones when next you get an opportunity. RIP, Rest in Code my friend. Sincerely, Tracy On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 19:21:53 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:21:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> <9E084613-1776-4705-B4D7-FD905CCC01C9@egyptig.org> Message-ID: +1 On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 4:23 PM Amr Elsadr wrote: > This sounds like a wonderful idea to me. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 4:17 PM, parminder wrote: > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his > efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through > whoever is able to make contact with his family. > > parminder > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was > an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will > agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring > efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very > effectively in all the areas of his interest. > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this > irreparable loss. > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 16 19:31:37 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:31:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Cc: "governance" Sent: 17/12/2019 11:20:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >Devastating news. > >I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. > >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en > >@Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and >loved ones when next you get an opportunity. > >RIP, Rest in Code my friend. > >Sincerely, > >Tracy > >On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: >>Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >>It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died >>just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. >>He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my >>heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 >>years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son >>Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >>I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet >>Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being >>President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he >>founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of >>the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents >>and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development >>and ensuring access for all. >> >>Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>address is as follows: >> >>Mrs Nazia Shah >>Flat 25E >>Askari 1, >>Sadder Cantt >>Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>Lahore, Pakistan >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 16 19:47:49 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:47:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7V2TTNawEYL0iSNuG6NEtBRbqMgOix0Z2vcXKo_hBerjoyiyoY8_YDqOgCndyQ6UZp9TNWUzWR5wHDXknhUlW8C5GGRDQ0mn0H9BqJI5R2Y=@ferdeline.com> > I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of > > RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. That is an excellent idea, Ian. I support it. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of > > RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Cc: "governance" > Sent: 17/12/2019 11:20:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > >> Devastating news. >> >> I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. >> >> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en >> >> @Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and loved ones when next you get an opportunity. >> >> RIP, Rest in Code my friend. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Tracy >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >> >>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal address is as follows: >>> >>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>> Flat 25E >>> Askari 1, >>> Sadder Cantt >>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>> Lahore, Pakistan >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 16 23:19:01 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:19:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <7V2TTNawEYL0iSNuG6NEtBRbqMgOix0Z2vcXKo_hBerjoyiyoY8_YDqOgCndyQ6UZp9TNWUzWR5wHDXknhUlW8C5GGRDQ0mn0H9BqJI5R2Y=@ferdeline.com> References: <7V2TTNawEYL0iSNuG6NEtBRbqMgOix0Z2vcXKo_hBerjoyiyoY8_YDqOgCndyQ6UZp9TNWUzWR5wHDXknhUlW8C5GGRDQ0mn0H9BqJI5R2Y=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Kamran (Imran's brother) is currently in Lahore to help comfort Imran's young family. Aside from the IGC sending a corporate card, it would be good for individuals to send a card to the Nazia and the children and mention what part of the world you are from so that they know their father made a difference and it would encourage them. The address is in my original email. With every best wish, Sala On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 12:47 am Ayden Férdeline, wrote: > I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the > igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of > > RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the > revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. > > > That is an excellent idea, Ian. I support it. > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:31 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the > igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of > > RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the > revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Cc: "governance" > Sent: 17/12/2019 11:20:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > Devastating news. > > I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en > > @Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and loved > ones when next you get an opportunity. > > RIP, Rest in Code my friend. > > Sincerely, > > Tracy > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >> Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> Lahore, Pakistan >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 01:24:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Hempal Shrestha (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:09:49 +0545 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <7V2TTNawEYL0iSNuG6NEtBRbqMgOix0Z2vcXKo_hBerjoyiyoY8_YDqOgCndyQ6UZp9TNWUzWR5wHDXknhUlW8C5GGRDQ0mn0H9BqJI5R2Y=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Sad and sorry to hear about Imran. May his soul rest in peace and my prayers for the family for the strength o bear this loss. Hempal Shrestha On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:04 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear All, > > Kamran (Imran's brother) is currently in Lahore to help comfort Imran's > young family. Aside from the IGC sending a corporate card, it would be good > for individuals to send a card to the Nazia and the children and mention > what part of the world you are from so that they know their father made a > difference and it would encourage them. > > The address is in my original email. > > With every best wish, > Sala > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 12:47 am Ayden Férdeline, > wrote: > >> I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the >> igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of >> >> RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the >> revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. >> >> >> That is an excellent idea, Ian. I support it. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:31 AM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> >> I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the >> igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of >> >> RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the >> revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. >> >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" >> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > >> Cc: "governance" >> Sent: 17/12/2019 11:20:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >> >> Devastating news. >> >> I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. >> >> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en >> >> @Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and loved >> ones when next you get an opportunity. >> >> RIP, Rest in Code my friend. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Tracy >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>> address is as follows: >>> >>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>> Flat 25E >>> Askari 1, >>> Sadder Cantt >>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>> Lahore, Pakistan >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Dec 17 03:45:13 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:45:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <7V2TTNawEYL0iSNuG6NEtBRbqMgOix0Z2vcXKo_hBerjoyiyoY8_YDqOgCndyQ6UZp9TNWUzWR5wHDXknhUlW8C5GGRDQ0mn0H9BqJI5R2Y=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Dear all, This is devastating news. Imran was a very valued member of our community, and he will be missed. I can only imagine what his family and loved ones are going through. As has been suggested, Bruna and I will put together a message for the family, on behalf of IGC which we can share with you beforehand. I would also encourage, as has already been mentioned, that we individually get in touch with the family to express our condolences. Best wishes Sheetal. On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 06:26, Hempal Shrestha wrote: > Sad and sorry to hear about Imran. May his soul rest in peace and my > prayers for the family for the strength o bear this loss. > > Hempal Shrestha > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:04 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Kamran (Imran's brother) is currently in Lahore to help comfort Imran's >> young family. Aside from the IGC sending a corporate card, it would be good >> for individuals to send a card to the Nazia and the children and mention >> what part of the world you are from so that they know their father made a >> difference and it would encourage them. >> >> The address is in my original email. >> >> With every best wish, >> Sala >> >> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 12:47 am Ayden Férdeline, >> wrote: >> >>> I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the >>> igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of >>> >>> RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the >>> revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. >>> >>> >>> That is an excellent idea, Ian. I support it. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:31 AM, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>> >>> I wonder if the Tech Team would also like to add a simple note to the >>> igcaucus Home Page - along the lines of >>> >>> RIP Imran Ahmed Shah. Your role in the creation of this website and the >>> revival of the Internet Governance Caucus will not be forgotten. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" >>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >>> Cc: "governance" >>> Sent: 17/12/2019 11:20:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>> >>> Devastating news. >>> >>> I met Imran in 2009 in Seoul as an ICANN Fellow at ICANN 36. >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/seoul-attendees-2009-10-01-en >>> >>> @Sala please convey my sincerest condolences to Imran's family and loved >>> ones when next you get an opportunity. >>> >>> RIP, Rest in Code my friend. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Tracy >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 6:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>>> >>>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>>> >>>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>>> >>>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>>> >>>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>>> address is as follows: >>>> >>>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>>> Flat 25E >>>> Askari 1, >>>> Sadder Cantt >>>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>> Lahore, Pakistan >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 03:55:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nadira Alaraj (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:55:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What a loss! I never met Imran in person, but I read his valued contributions and witnessed his energy to accommodate setting up the archives and the website for this group. He demonstrated a gentleman approach in dealing with all dialog and heated debates on this group as well. I aslo support the idea of a tribute from this group to be delivered to his family. Nadira On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 12:23 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Dec 17 04:31:06 2019 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 05:31:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Such sad news. May his soul rest in peace and eternal light. Deepest condolences to his family and friends. Jacqueline Morris On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 6:23 am "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro", < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 05:30:05 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Fatimata Seye Sylla (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:30:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very sad news and a big loss! May Allah SWT grant him Jannah. My deepest condolences to his family. Fatimata Le lun. 16 déc. 2019 à 10:23, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla ICT4D, Education & Genre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 04:15:32 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:15:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Pennsylvania Orphans Court could stop ISOC sale of PIR Message-ID: Dear all, Last Friday, ISOC CEO Andrew Sullivan was asked on a call with ISOC members who could stop/reject the sale of PIR. Sullivan replied, "There are two. ICANN could reject the sale, or could impose conditions on it, and a court in Pennsylvania, which is called the Orphans Court, it's a long story why it's the Orphans Court as opposed to anything else, but a court in Pennsylvania also has to approve this because of changes that have to happen to PIR. PIR is incorporated in Pennsylvania, and that's the reason it's in Pennsylvania." I am sharing this quote in case it can help in catalysing litigation efforts. I am not a lawyer so am not sure what options we have available here. If anyone is interested in conducting further research here, to enhance understanding of the evidence available and to help inform forum choice, I'd be happy to help to the extent that I can. And I'd really like to read your analysis! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Tue Dec 17 11:28:27 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:28:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline 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 < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > 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 > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Tue Dec 17 12:04:56 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 17 Dec 2019 12:04:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] What Ethos isn't doing, was PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191217170456.534A31171EDA@ary.qy> In article you write: >A sale will result in the destabilization of .ORG and the 10 million >registrants and risks destroying ISOC in the process. I understand you keep saying this, but there remains not a shred of evidence behind it. All the arguments boil down to they MIGHT do this, or they MIGHT do that. Sure they might, but by that argument, since none of us can see into each other's souls, the current PIR management MIGHT do any of the same things and the PIR and ISOC boards MIGHT agree. All we can do is look at motivations and costs and benefits. Here's some unanswered questions: why shouldn't we believe that Ethos is doing exactly what they say they are doing, putting money into a well respected business with good cash flow that's uncorrelated with the stock market*? Or if, totally hypothetically, Ethos' publicity shy investors wanted to harass some non-profits, why would they choose this incredibly high profile and inefficient way to do so that would send their billion dollar investment down to zero? R's, John * - Being uncorrelated is a good thing for investments. From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 12:42:41 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:42:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 > On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: > >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 12:52:00 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:52:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can understand when the capitalist rule. We might not see the effect emediately, but trust me ISOC will suffer it. On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 5:43 PM George Sadowsky wrote: > 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 > > On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express > , our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now > with a donation today > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express > , our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now > with a donation today > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Dec 17 15:18:48 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:18:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Agree - we should definitely send our support to his family. This is very sudden and sad. Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/12/16 21:56, Ian Peter wrote: > This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent > rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in > getting us back to a strong presence. > > I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed > sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how > respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "parminder" > > To: governance at lists.riseup.net > Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > >> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran  but his >> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >> >> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >> >> parminder >> >> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues,  >>> >>> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. >>> Imran was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from >>> Pakistan. We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would >>> value for his untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he >>> would represent very effectively in all the areas of his interest.  >>> >>> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>> this irreparable loss.  >>> >>> Such is life! >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> --  >>> Shahzad Ahmad >>> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>> >>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >> > wrote: >>> >>> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>> >>> Ayden   >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>>> >>>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died >>>> just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>>> >>>>  Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, >>>> his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart >>>> attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so >>>> sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife >>>> Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in >>>> GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. >>>> >>>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan >>>> Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such >>>> as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other >>>> organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led >>>> to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an innovator >>>> and held many patents and some pending. He was always passionate >>>> about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>>> >>>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their >>>> postal address is as follows: >>>> >>>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>>> Flat 25E >>>> Askari 1, >>>> Sadder Cantt >>>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>> Lahore, Pakistan >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julian at colnodo.apc.org Tue Dec 17 15:28:13 2019 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Juli=c3=a1n_Casasbuenas_G=2e?=) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:28:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55e68f80-8fdf-8938-a522-12376cc0dcf9@colnodo.apc.org> My deepest condolences to his family, Julián El 16/12/19 a las 5:22 a. m., "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) escribió: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden > passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died > just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > >  Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his > wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. > He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my > heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 > years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son > Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet > Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being > President of the Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he > founded. His advocacy work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of > the two letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many patents > and some pending. He was always passionate about people, development > and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Colnodo - Uso estratégico de Internet para el desarrollo *Julián Casasbuenas G.* Director Tels: 57-1-2324246, 57-315-2585596 Cel. 57-315-3339099 Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_firma_digital.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4444 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 16:22:29 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 22:22:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] a sort of Testimony (was: [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale) Message-ID: Hi all, ...i understand that we are all very affected by his unexpected departure ; but i recall that our dear and precious Imran was supporting this initiave. I have tears in eyes, while reading again what appears to be his lastest (*2019.12.12, 23:12:46, UTC*) email [1] on this mailinglist...i wanted to thank him directly for supporting my long review, but i didn't do it because i was thinking that i'll have a good opportunity to finally discuss some technical aspects of this IG Caucus's activities with him...now it's simply late ! In fact, i was planning to contact him soon. But ils late now ! ..i'm confused to say that, it was not the first time i failed to interact with Imran. He asked [2] me (*2019.08.08, 07:37:18, UTC*) for more information about a suggestion [3] i proposed (*2019.08.07, 20:58:16, UTC*), but i postponed and ended with no response :'-( So, i failed two times to directly engage with him. He was good enough to read me and write ; now again it's too late... ...i think i should, perhaps, join the tech team, to help the others to continue his great work. Maybe not too late finally. I'll also use this email to support the two priceless ideas proposed by Parminder [4] & by Ian [5]. Finally i, humbly, suggest that we move forward, ASAP, those two letters about the 'PIR Sale'. ...again, deepest condolences to us and family ! Thanks. __ [1]: [2]: [3]: [4]: [5]: Shalom, --sb. Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 12:12 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah a écrit : > Dear All, > > I also second the ammendment proposed by Sylvain, especially conditions > for the future bidders. > ICANN should prepare criteria for the stewardship of these Registries to > remain in the not for profit organizations. > > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > . > > On Friday, 13 December 2019, 02:01:24 GMT+5, Sylvain Baya < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Please see my comments below (inline)... > > Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a > écrit : > > Hi all, > > Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a > statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your > consideration. Thanks! > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > === > > > Many thanks dear Ayden. > > *To: * *Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN* > > *Cc:* *Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN* > > *We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to > the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. > As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that > Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, > .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1]* > > *Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their > email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just > domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network > which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we > believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made > following consultation with impacted registrants and the global > non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, > which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the > delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2]* > > *The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations.* > > > ...{*i'm not a native english though :'-(*} i think it's the Registry > which provides a > service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think > there is a > need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for > illustration : > > “ > *The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be > constituted * > > *by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet > community which * > > *is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to > commercial's or for-profit * > *entities).*” > > * In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a > new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original > purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as > a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, > article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and > Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum > of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to > establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the > non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG > registry.”[4]* > > > ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial > error ; though, understandable > because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and > members of the > 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... > > *The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is > non-governmental organizations. * > > > ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry > which provides a service > to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is > a need to preferably > rephrased like this : > > “ > *The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is intended > to be * > *constituted by non-governmental organizations.*” > > *Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR > states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through > non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or > through evidence of NGO status.”[5]* > > *Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and > indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial > number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has > sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s > largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. > We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 > signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue > statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale > has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street > Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade > press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim > Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to > question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question > the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We > are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR.* > > *Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the > .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do > the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements.* > > > > *We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for > performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for > public tender. * > > > ...good advice/request ! > The tone is well measured. > > Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : > > " > *...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate > itself from the PIR, * > *in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing > model.*" > > *Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust > Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a > letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for > renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent > operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14]* > > > ...good piece ! > > *Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of > the tender process, * > > > ...*i firmly oppose* this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency > with the fundamental > logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this > draft. If EC becomes, > suddently, a non-profit (*Beneficial Corp ???*), it would be great to > recommend it...not before ! > > ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by the > 'dealer' of the PIR : > > *[...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids > during the 2002 .ORG * > > *registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that > the ISC (Internet * > > *Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : > ‘too much * > *non-profit !’ * > *And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit > company. [...]* > > ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : > > “ > *In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [*][**], we > firmly recommend * > > *that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that > tender process.” * > > *“In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the > non-commercial * > > *Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG > registry (via * > *a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please > act accordingly.*” > __ > [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 < > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> > [**]: > > *as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of > non-profits and other public interest groups. * > > > ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. > > *However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to > indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. * > > *This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track > record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have > committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] * > > > I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this letter. > It's not about > that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, > i can formulate as > follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the > development of > the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not > only a single > stakeholder in the Internet community... > > *We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many > organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower > registration prices for our resource-poor communities. **As you may > remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to > ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16]* > > > ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. > > *If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer > of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and > non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and > other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack > of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. * > > *Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain > name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG > domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal > rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its > materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American > College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, > estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level > domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor > communities and hinder our good work. * > > *Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted > partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture > capital firm. * > > *Thank you for your time and consideration of our request.* > > *About the Internet Governance Caucus* > > *[[Description to go here]]] * > > > > *[1] * > *https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/* > > > *[2] **https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591* > > > *[3] **https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en* > > > > see section D.1 & D.2 < > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> > > > *[4] * > *https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4* > > > > ...what a great find ! > > *[5] * > *https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm* > > > *[6] * > *https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry* > > > *[7] **https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab* > * and * > *https://savedotorg.org/* > > *[8] Netherlands (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html* > *), > Switzerland (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html* > *), > Portugal (* > *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html* > > *)* > > *[9] **https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html* > > > *[10] * > *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* > > > *[11] **https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a* > > > *[12] **https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824* > > > *[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: * > *https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy* > > > > < > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/author.html#start > > > > *[14] See page 10, * > *https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf* > > > *[15] On their website (**https://www.keypointsabout.org/* > *), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is > to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, > which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on > average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices > annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains > double in price every five years.* > > *[16] **https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm* > > > > > > *[17] Page 16, * > *https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf* > *.* > > *[18] * > *https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751* > > > > Done ! thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever > lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: > > I support that too. > Best, > Niels > On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > 100% in support. > WISDOM DONKOR > President & CEO > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > > [...] > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com > wrote: > > Dear all, > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > Is there support for this proposal? > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > [...] > > Niels ten Oever > Researcher and PhD Candidate > Datactive Research Group > University of Amsterdam > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > ------------------------------ > > [...] > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Tue Dec 17 16:46:58 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:46:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Here are the demands in the NCSG letter regarding ORG Message-ID: * 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. The organizations and individuals on this list who are not NCSG members should get behind these demands. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 49369 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From milton at gatech.edu Tue Dec 17 16:39:05 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:39:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brett, and all others interested in the ORG sale. As I have been saying since the Berlin IGF, making noise about the sale and demanding nothing except “stop the sale” does nothing for ORG registrants. In this letter to the ICANN board, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zfaTlkIUZEsNMOQljy43SQSXZUQBmgFSJYVnjGgpYp8/edit the ICANN’s Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) set out a specific set of demands grounded in ICANN process and ORG’s original RFP. If those demands are met, via amendments to the Registry Agreement, it doesn’t matter whether Ethos Capital or anyone else owns ORG. We will be protected. Let’s not foster outrage for its own sake, let’s get something done! The obvious flaw in the “stop the sale” emphasis that is being peddled here is that if you are successful, what do we have? We have no price caps, no content neutrality protections, no removal of the URS from ORG, and an entity running org that would prefer not to. That’s what you are proposing. Does it sound desirable? Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Brett Solomon Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:28 AM To: Ayden Férdeline Cc: george.sadowsky at gmail.com; governance Subject: Re: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 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 | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB *Subscribe to the Access Now Express, our weekly newsletter on digital rights *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB *Subscribe to the Access Now Express, our weekly newsletter on digital rights *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 19668 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 18:17:43 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:17:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please extend our condolences to his family. He will be missed in this space. May he rest in peace. Amen ____ REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (DigitalSENSE Business News ; ITREALMS , NaijaAgroNet ) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable * JOIN us!! *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS ) _________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:23 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 04:23:15 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> References: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> Message-ID: <1895797598.1687836.1575278595956@mail.yahoo.com> Should it be compared with The story hen of golden eggs...  On Monday, 2 December 2019, 14:06:47 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: I found it interesting as well. I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business.  So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark.                      -Bill On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline wrote: A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 23:55:47 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 05:55:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Launching Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan In-Reply-To: <1916897629.108022.1477122937345@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1916897629.108022.1477122937345@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9242b856-b525-d98c-b8a4-51db14a79800@gmail.com> Hi all, ...i found this interesting to share ; as the archives are still missing that part of the story of the IG Caucus. Thanks. Shalom --sb. -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [governance] Launching Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan Date : Sat, 22 Oct 2016 07:55:37 +0000 (UTC) De : Imran Ahmed Shah Répondre à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Imran Ahmed Shah Pour : governance at lists.igcaucus.org , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net , igfregionals at intgovforum.org Copie à : AGENGO at unog.ch , Yuliya Morenets , Yannis Li Dear All, On behalf of *Urdu Internet Society *and *Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan*, I am pleased to announce that today on 22nd October 2016, we are launching the initiative of "Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan". First Meeting is being held at the Office of SPO Pakistan at 3:00 pm today. This is important initiative for the involvement of teenagers and young people of our community providing them a platform to discuss their Internet related issues and to fill up the communication gap between our youth and policy development stakeholders.  Digital presence for ready reference and up to date information may be found at http://igfpak.org/ and https://web.facebook.com/yIGF.Pakistan/ *Invitation to first Meeting of Youth IGF Pakistan:* yIGFPakistan invites you to attend first Meeting of yIGF Pakistan on 22nd October 2016 at 3:00pm (Pakistan Time) at the Office of SPO Pakistan, Shere Shah Block, Lahore Miss Erum Arif is assinged the responsibility as an Ambassador to Youth IGF Pakistan to organize the event discussion and reach out to the community. Hopefully the Internet Service will be workable at the meeting.  Please find here under a WebEx Meeting Link for Limited participation and shared Contents: WebEx Meeting Link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/… Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ___________________________________ Co-ordinator: -              Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan President, Founder & Executive Member -              Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu Internet Society -              Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan (IGFPak.Org) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 17 23:59:44 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 06:59:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Launching Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan In-Reply-To: <9242b856-b525-d98c-b8a4-51db14a79800@gmail.com> References: <1916897629.108022.1477122937345@mail.yahoo.com> <9242b856-b525-d98c-b8a4-51db14a79800@gmail.com> Message-ID: Imran will truly be missed in the local IGF community as well as for this community! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 6:56 AM Sylvain BAYA wrote: > Hi all, > > ...i found this interesting to share ; as the archives are still missing > that part of > > the story of the IG Caucus. > > Thanks. > Shalom > --sb. > > -------- Message transféré -------- > Sujet : [governance] Launching Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan > Date : Sat, 22 Oct 2016 07:55:37 +0000 (UTC) > De : Imran Ahmed Shah > Répondre à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Imran Ahmed Shah > > Pour : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > , > igfregionals at intgovforum.org > > Copie à : AGENGO at unog.ch , Yuliya > Morenets > , Yannis Li > > > Dear All, > > On behalf of *Urdu Internet Society *and *Internet Governance Forum of > Pakistan*, I am pleased to announce that today on 22nd October 2016, we > are launching the initiative of "Youth Internet Governance Forum of > Pakistan". First Meeting is being held at the Office of SPO Pakistan at > 3:00 pm today. This is important initiative for the involvement of > teenagers and young people of our community providing them a platform to > discuss their Internet related issues and to fill up the communication gap > between our youth and policy development stakeholders. > > Digital presence for ready reference and up to date information may be > found at http://igfpak.org/ and https://web.facebook.com/yIGF.Pakistan/ > > *Invitation to first Meeting of Youth IGF Pakistan:* > yIGFPakistan invites you to attend first Meeting of yIGF Pakistan on 22nd > October 2016 at 3:00pm (Pakistan Time) at the Office of SPO Pakistan, Shere > Shah Block, Lahore > > Miss Erum Arif is assinged the responsibility as an Ambassador to Youth > IGF Pakistan to organize the event discussion and reach out to the > community. > > Hopefully the Internet Service will be workable at the meeting. > Please find here under a WebEx Meeting Link for Limited participation and > shared Contents: > > WebEx Meeting Link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/… > > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > ___________________________________ > Co-ordinator: > - Youth Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan > > President, Founder & Executive Member > - Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu Internet Society > - Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan (IGFPak.Org) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Dec 18 06:48:01 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:48:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, This is the final version of the letter, which we will be sending today. I will cc in the list. Thanks to everyone for their active contributions. Best Sheetal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR and we call for more inclusiveness in addition. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. Sincerely yours, Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* **The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. Please see more information on the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/ * On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks dear Ayden. > Just one thing :-) > > ...add *inclusiveness* alongside with the recommendation for more > *transparency*. > > Please see below (inline)... > > Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 4:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline a > écrit : > >> Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had shared their >> input on this statement. I've pasted below what we have at present. I >> apologise if I have missed any edits or failed to address any concerns - if >> so, please can you advise. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> ==== >> >> *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that >> Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry >> (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >> Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >> ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >> commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of >> its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies >> with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and >> users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs >> there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of >> ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >> and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC >> greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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.* >> >> *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >> September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >> November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not >> just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * >> >> *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more >> transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. * >> > > “*...the proposed sale of PIR, and we call for more inclusiveness in > addition.*” > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > *We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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.* >> >> *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who >> promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent >> with those values when making major decisions. * >> >> *This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for >> ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a >> human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation >> with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. * >> >> *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >> reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home >> for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and >> ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to >> reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC >> espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations >> with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its >> charter.* >> >> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >> >> *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, >> acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC >> is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* >> >> *Vision* >> >> *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of >> the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally >> agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, >> and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet >> governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. >> Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, >> will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal >> opportunity and freedom for all.* >> >> *Mission* >> >> *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a >> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil >> society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends >> to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, >> policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide >> a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and >> influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* >> >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> [...] >> > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 18 06:51:05 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:51:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > If those demands are met, via amendments to the Registry Agreement, it doesn’t matter whether Ethos Capital or anyone else owns ORG. Yes, it does matter who owns and controls .ORG. If the price of a .ORG domain increases under the ownership of Ethos Capital, that is a diversion of public interest money away from the non-profit community and into the hands of investment vehicles that are controlled by billionaires. > We will be protected. Let’s not foster outrage for its own sake, let’s get something done! I agree that registrant protections are important and I too would like to see these protections inserted into the Registry Agreement. But I do not agree with your characterisation of opposition to the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital as "outrage for its own sake". Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 17, 2019 10:39 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Brett, and all others interested in the ORG sale. > > As I have been saying since the Berlin IGF, making noise about the sale and demanding nothing except “stop the sale” does nothing for ORG registrants. > > In this letter to the ICANN board, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zfaTlkIUZEsNMOQljy43SQSXZUQBmgFSJYVnjGgpYp8/edit > > the ICANN’s Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) set out a specific set of demands grounded in ICANN process and ORG’s original RFP. If those demands are met, via amendments to the Registry Agreement, it doesn’t matter whether Ethos Capital or anyone else owns ORG. We will be protected. Let’s not foster outrage for its own sake, let’s get something done! > > The obvious flaw in the “stop the sale” emphasis that is being peddled here is that if you are successful, what do we have? We have no price caps, no content neutrality protections, no removal of the URS from ORG, and an entity running org that would prefer not to. That’s what you are proposing. Does it sound desirable? > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > [IGP_logo_gold block] > > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Brett Solomon > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 11:28 AM > To: Ayden Férdeline > Cc: george.sadowsky at gmail.com; governance > Subject: Re: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 > > 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 | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the [Access Now Express](https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up), our weekly newsletter on digital rights > > *Protect digital rights around the world - [support Access Now](https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1) with a donation today > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the [Access Now Express](https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up), our weekly newsletter on digital rights > > *Protect digital rights around the world - [support Access Now](https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1) with a donation today > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline 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 wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 19668 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 07:06:31 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:06:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 to this letter. *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / www.afrigeocon.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > This is the final version of the letter, which we will be sending today. I > will cc in the list. Thanks to everyone for their active contributions. > > Best > Sheetal. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org* > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that > Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry > (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of > its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and > users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs > there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of > ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, > and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC > greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > > We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not > just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. > > We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more > transparent about the proposed sale of PIR and we call for more > inclusiveness in addition. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its > website all 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. > > This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for > ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a > human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation > with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. > > ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home > for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and > ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC > espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations > with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its > charter. > > Sincerely yours, > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* > > **The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. > Please see more information on the IGC here: > https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/ * > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Sylvain Baya wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks dear Ayden. >> Just one thing :-) >> >> ...add *inclusiveness* alongside with the recommendation for more >> *transparency*. >> >> Please see below (inline)... >> >> Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 4:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline a >> écrit : >> >>> Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had shared their >>> input on this statement. I've pasted below what we have at present. I >>> apologise if I have missed any edits or failed to address any concerns - if >>> so, please can you advise. Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>> ==== >>> >>> *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >>> Society* >>> >>> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>> organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement that >>> Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public Interest Registry >>> (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>> Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. * >>> >>> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >>> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>> ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >>> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >>> commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of >>> its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies >>> with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and >>> users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs >>> there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of >>> ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >>> and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC >>> greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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.* >>> >>> *We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in >>> September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by >>> November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not >>> just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. * >>> >>> *We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be more >>> transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. * >>> >> >> “*...the proposed sale of PIR, and we call for more inclusiveness in >> addition.*” >> >> Thanks. >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> *We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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.* >>> >>> *We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who >>> promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent >>> with those values when making major decisions. * >>> >>> *This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, for >>> ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a >>> human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation >>> with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place >>> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >>> who visit their websites every day. * >>> >>> *ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a >>> reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home >>> for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and >>> ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to >>> reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we thought ISOC >>> espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to withdraw from its negotiations >>> with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its >>> charter.* >>> >>> *About the Internet Governance Caucus* >>> >>> *The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are individuals, >>> acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe to IGC's charter. The IGC >>> is guided by its vision and mission, included below.* >>> >>> *Vision* >>> >>> *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of >>> the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally >>> agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, >>> and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet >>> governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. >>> Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, >>> will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal >>> opportunity and freedom for all.* >>> >>> *Mission* >>> >>> *The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a >>> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil >>> society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends >>> to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, >>> policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide >>> a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and >>> influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes.* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> [...] >>> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 18 07:41:27 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:41:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management Message-ID: Dear all, In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House warns that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased operational spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even would result in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly more than three days without service each year." "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical real-time functions. Three days per year of interrupted communications for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society globally." https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 18 07:54:04 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:54:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry to send another email on this topic; I probably should have offered some additional context. [The Register](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/17/icann_org_purchase/)offers this description of the Packet Clearing House and why it is qualified to comment on .ORG: "Packet Clearing House is largely unknown outside technical circles but it is a key company within the internet’s infrastructure: it helps host the domain-name hierarchy's root servers and provides DNS for top-level domains using machines in nearly 200 locations across the globe. Critically in this case, it is also a key technical partner for .org and has provided DNS services to the registry for the past 15 years, even as ownership has changed hands." Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:41 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House warns that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased operational spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even would result in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly more than three days without service each year." > > "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical real-time functions. Three days per year of interrupted communications for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society globally." > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Dec 18 08:03:21 2019 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:03:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> 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 (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > 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 > > > On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org > > > > @solomonbrett > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > > Brett Solomon > > Executive Director > > Access Now | accessnow.org > > > > @solomonbrett > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > >> > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Tapani Tarvainen From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 08:56:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:56:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Packet Clearing House is run by Bill Woodcock and they have been extensively measuring network traffic and other aspects of critical internet infrastructure and are very very well known within the Tech and Internet community. I know PCH but I don't know "The Register". On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, 12:54 pm Ayden Férdeline, wrote: > Sorry to send another email on this topic; I probably should have offered > some additional context. *The Register* > offers > this description of the Packet Clearing House and why it is qualified to > comment on .ORG: > > *"Packet Clearing House is largely unknown outside technical circles but > it is a key company within the internet’s infrastructure: it helps host the > domain-name hierarchy's root servers and provides DNS for top-level domains > using machines in nearly 200 locations across the globe. Critically in this > case, it is also a key technical partner for .org and has provided DNS > services to the registry for the past 15 years, even as ownership has > changed hands."* > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:41 PM, Ayden Férdeline < > ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > > In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House warns > that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased operational > spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even would result > in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly more than three > days without service each year." > > "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends > rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., > UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, > IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic > control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of > nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical > real-time functions. *Three days per year of interrupted communications > for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the > stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society > globally.*" > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 09:01:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:01:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Le 18/12/2019 à 12:48, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > Dear all, > > This is the final version of the letter, which we will be sending > today. I will cc in the list. Dear Sheetal, Thanks, go on ! and please, also save a copy somewhere (? igcaucusDOTorg/letters/) on IGCs website. Shalom, --sb > Thanks to everyone for their active contributions. > > Best > Sheetal. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org* > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the announcement > that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including > the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be > called off. > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and > weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining > non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a > counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, > and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains > are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While > the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can > also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights > implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do > what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of > doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and > wider influence. It 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. > > We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in > September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by > November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, > not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. > > We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC to be > more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR and we call for more > inclusiveness in addition. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on > its website all 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and > who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be > coherent with those values when making major decisions. > > This is a major decision that would result in a significant change, > for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) > without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without > consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate > safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. > > ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a > reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global > home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this > background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and > openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with > the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to > withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to withdraw > from selling PIR, so to honor its charter. > > Sincerely yours, > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* > > /*The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual > members. Please see more information on the IGC here: > https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter// > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Thanks dear Ayden. > Just one thing :-) > > ...add *inclusiveness* alongside with the recommendation for more > *transparency*. > > Please see below (inline)... > > Le ven. 13 déc. 2019 4:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline > a écrit : > > Thanks for this edit, Ian, and thanks to everyone who had > shared their input on this statement. I've pasted below what > we have at present. I apologise if I have missed any edits or > failed to address any concerns - if so, please can you advise. > Thanks again and enjoy your weekend! > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline  > ==== > > /To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, > Internet Society/ > > > /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and individuals, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital intends to acquire the assets > of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet > Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry > Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. / > > > /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a > private entity investment firm would significantly alter the > Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important > role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the > benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run > by private companies with purely financial objectives. While > the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they > can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant > human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name > registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider > influence. It 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./ > > > /We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an > offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached > to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, > and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the > urgency to divest of PIR. / > > > /We join ICANN in its 9 December 2019 letter calling for ISOC > to be more transparent about the proposed sale of PIR. / > > > “/...the proposed sale of PIR*, and we call for more inclusiveness > in addition.*/” > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > /We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all > 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./ > > > /We expect an organization that operates in the public > interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and > transparency, to be coherent with those values when making > major decisions. / > > > /This is a major decision that would result in a significant > change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has > been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment > being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted > stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants > and the people who visit their websites every day. / > > > /ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, > gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that > truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial > community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated > commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to > reconcile the path that ISOC has taken with the values we > thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we call upon ISOC to > withdraw from its negotiations with Ethos Capital, and to > withdraw from selling PIR, so to honor its charter./ > > > */About the Internet Governance Caucus/* > > > /The members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) are > individuals, acting in their personal capacity, who subscribe > to IGC's charter. The IGC is guided by its vision and mission, > included below./ > > > /_Vision_/ > > > /The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the > development of the technologies themselves, but also the > realization of internationally agreed human rights, social > equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social > and economic development. Our vision is that Internet > governance should be inclusive, people centered and > development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums > relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an > information society which better enables equal opportunity and > freedom for all./ > > > /_Mission_/ > > > /The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to > provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet > governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open > and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy > options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to > provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance > the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the > IGC in relevant policy processes./ > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > [...] > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 04:53:49 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:23:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <1895797598.1687836.1575278595956@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> <1895797598.1687836.1575278595956@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <662A3C85-2BC1-4C04-8A38-96D2C4FBB3D2@hserus.net> The story I read had a goose instead of a hen but not really.  If the pricing goes above a certain extent domainers will stay away, but most non profits should be able to afford it.  $15 moving to even $25 a year is, for example, less than the cost you can spend on a dinner with your family in India (or a very modest meal stateside) As I said, given the relatively few non profits compared to domainer owned domains (or general population owned domains) in .org, the new buyer could just provide free registration to registered nonprofits and still not see any appreciable difference to his numbers. From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 2:53 PM To: Ayden Férdeline , Bill Woodcock Cc: governance Subject: Re: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? Should it be compared with The story hen of golden eggs... On Monday, 2 December 2019, 14:06:47 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: I found it interesting as well. I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business. So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark. -Bill On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline wrote:  A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Wed Dec 18 10:59:46 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 18 Dec 2019 10:59:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] NCSG stuff, was PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191218155946.701FF117B645@ary.qy> In article you write: >In this letter to the ICANN board, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zfaTlkIUZEsNMOQljy43SQSXZUQBmgFSJYVnjGgpYp8/edit >the ICANN’s Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) set out a specific set of demands grounded in ICANN process and ORG’s original >RFP. If those demands are met, via amendments to the Registry Agreement, it doesn’t matter whether Ethos Capital or anyone else owns >ORG. We will be protected. Let’s not foster outrage for its own sake, let’s get something done! Speaking only for myself, I don't find any of the NCSG's requests particularly out of line, although there are two places where you shoot yourself in the foot. While everything else is a non-technical policy change, increasing the registration window from 10 to 20 years would require changes to the EPP spec, changes to the EPP implementation at the registry, changes to the EPP implementation at every registrar, and changes to the everyone's accounting and billing systems. If you've ever dealt with EPP, this is not cheap or fast, and I expect most registrars would not bother for the trickle of revenue it might bring in. Even if you believe that some future registry owner would increase prices above competitive levels, the extra benefit of 20 years vs 10 is pretty speculative. We have no idea what the domain world will look like in 20 years. Who in 1999 would have predicted the current situation with a thousand failing novelty domains and Verisign still bigger than everyone else combined? I'd drop that, since it'll be contentious and has minimal benefit. The content neutrality item is reasonable, but you should make it clear that it's not in opposition to Healthy Domains which is addressing stuff that (I assume) we all agree is broadly illegal, such as malware distribution, phishing web sites, and distribution of child abuse material, Finally for the part about .NGO/.ONG, if the registrants say they don't like the new owner, then what? There's only 3000 of them. Either they stay with PIR or they're not viable. R's, John From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 10:59:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:59:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Ian I do agree with you. Let us also take time off to check on our health. Regards Remmy On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: > This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent > rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting > us back to a strong presence. > > I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed > sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how > respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "parminder" > To: governance at lists.riseup.net > Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his > efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC through > whoever is able to make contact with his family. > > parminder > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran was > an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will > agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his untiring > efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very > effectively in all the areas of his interest. > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this > irreparable loss. > > Such is life! > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > Ayden > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden passing > of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his wife > that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is > broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, > daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran > Shah is 11 just started high school. > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance > Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance > Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the > Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy > work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. > He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always > passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal > address is as follows: > > Mrs Nazia Shah > Flat 25E > Askari 1, > Sadder Cantt > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > Lahore, Pakistan > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 11:07:43 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:07:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Dear Tapani, I agree with you 100% When I asked for clarification earlier in this discussion Joly sent a very clear outline of what was going on (thank you Joly for that explanation). ISOC as an institution has always seemed to me rather more oriented to the business and the commercial than to the social concerns, so this behaviour seemed perfectly rational to me within their ethos as I perceived it. I think that civil society needs to take a good look at itself. I'm suggesting again that civil society revisit the WSIS declaration from 2003 https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf This was not originally my suggestion. It came in 2015 from someone who does not identify as civil society, and it's a very useful suggestion. I keep being told that times and the internet have changed. I agree. They have. So since we have a benchmark to measure by why not use it to try to define how our values have changed. For me, values need to be constant. If the premise is a human-centred internet, then that value supercedes any financial considerations. But that value may have changed. It would be helpful to identify where we are, even if it means admitting that "civil society" has two factions, each looking at the world from a different perspective. Then we could begin to identify the common ground, and how "civil society" can raise a single voice. in matters that are important to all of us. Best wishes Deirdre On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 09:03, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > 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 (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon > 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 | accessnow.org > > > > > > @solomonbrett > > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > > > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > > > > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express < > https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up>, our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > > > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now < > https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1> with a donation today > > > Brett Solomon > > > Executive Director > > > Access Now | accessnow.org > > > > > > @solomonbrett > > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > > > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > > > > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express < > https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up>, our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > > > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now < > https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1> with a donation today > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 < > governance at lists.riseup.net > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com > http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > >> > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe: igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>> > > > List help: > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 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 > > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Dec 18 20:11:00 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:11:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [PDF] "Report "Global Internet Governance and International Security in the Field of..." In-Reply-To: <0100016f1a90230a-0b1371c3-68c2-497c-a64c-577dcc1e5a97-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <0100016f1a90230a-0b1371c3-68c2-497c-a64c-577dcc1e5a97-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Academia Date: Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:50 PM Subject: [PDF] "Report "Global Internet Governance and International Security in the Field of..." To: [image: Academia.edu] ------------------------------ Dear Carolina, You read the paper "Brazil and Cybersecurity in the Aftermath of the Snowden Revelations [Konrad... ". A related Internet Governance paper was uploaded to Academia. Report "Global Internet Governance and International Security in the Field of the ICT Use" Oleg Demidov 66 Views [image: Paper Thumbnail] 93 Pages Download Save to Library ABSTRACT The Report “Global Internet Governance and International Security in the Field of ICT Use” was prepared by the PIR Center’s Consultant Oleg Demidov with contribution from the Working Group on International Information Security and Global Internet Governance under the PIR Center’s Advisory Board. The PIR Center is a... Cyberlaw • Cyber Warfare • Cyber Security • Internet Governance + 2 more View Paper ▸ Not a good recommendation? ------------------------------ [image: App store badge at 2x] 580 California St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Unsubscribe Privacy Policy Terms of Service © 2019 Academia -- *__Carolina A. Rossini, JD, LLM, MBA* *Skype:* carolina.rossini_2 | Twitter: @carolinarossini https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolinarossini/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 00:17:44 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:47:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Invitation to apply for the ICANN Leadership position Message-ID: <04fb01d5b62b$a7405dc0$f5c11940$@com> Dear All, Apologies for cross posting Please find below the invitation issued by NomCom to community members to apply for the various leadership positions in ICANN. Do have a look and if interested apply. Also request if you could share it with interested community members. Regards, Amrita ICANN NomCom 2020 member …………………………………….. LOS ANGELES – 18 December 2019 – Today, the Nominating Committee (NomCom) for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) invites interested individuals to submit applications for key leadership positions within ICANN and Public Technical Identifiers (PTI), an affiliate of ICANN organization. Selected individuals will have a unique opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around the globe to help shape the Internet's technical coordination and policy development. The deadline to submit applications is 18 February 2020 at 23:59 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC). We are inviting applications for the following positions: · Two members of the ICANN Board of Directors. · One member of the PTI Board of Directors. · Two regional representatives to the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) – one from the European region and one from the North American region. · One member of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council. · One member of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council. Guided by the broad public interest, those selected will work to fulfill ICANN's mission to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers and, in particular, to ensure its stable and secure operation. The selected leaders will make a valuable public service contribution toward the evolution of the Domain Name System as an essential global resource. Qualifications Fluency in English is a requirement for all positions. Other qualifications, skills, and time commitments vary depending on the position. For information, visit the NomCom webpage. Application Deadline and Process Candidates must submit applications through the online candidate portal. For full consideration, the NomCom must receive applications by 18 February 2020, 23:59 UTC. There will be no grace period for candidates to complete their application forms through the online candidate portal. Candidate applications that remain incomplete at the end of this period will not be considered. Candidates will receive an automated email from either no-reply at email.zenginehq.com or no-reply at webportalapp.com after creating an account. In addition, candidates can contact NomCom Staff Support at nomcom2020 at icann.org if there are any questions. All applications are confidential. Selections are expected to be announced by August 2020. Successful candidates will assume their positions after ICANN's Annual General Meeting scheduled to be held during ICANN69, which runs from 17-22 October 2020. Meetings, Travel, Reimbursement, and Compensation These positions require regular participation in teleconferences and may involve significant international travel, including to ICANN's three annual Public Meetings. Meetings will be held in Hamburg, Germany (17-22 October 2020); Cancún, Mexico (20-25 March 2021); The Hague, Netherlands (14-17 June 2021); and Seattle, United States (23-28 October 2021). Reasonable direct and properly documented expenses incurred in the course of service will be reimbursed. Each ICANN Board member has the option to receive compensation in accordance with the resolution passed by the Board on 30 July 2014, but it is not required. (See Board Member Compensation.) For More Information Learn more by visiting the 2020 NomCom website. If you have any questions or comments, email nomcom2020 at icann.org. About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure, and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you need to type an address – a name or a number – into your computer or other device. That address must be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with a community of participants from all over the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 19 00:36:03 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:06:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: +1 Tapani, you put it extremely well, and pithily. That is the core issue. 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. 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. parminder On 18/12/19 6:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > 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 (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > >> 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 >> >>> On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org >>> >>> @solomonbrett >>> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB >>> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB >>> >>> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director >>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>> >>> @solomonbrett >>> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB >>> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB >>> >>> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 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 >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 02:20:46 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 07:20:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: +1 also, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 5:36 AM parminder wrote: > +1 > > Tapani, you put it extremely well, and pithily. That is the core issue. > > 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. > > 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. > > parminder > On 18/12/19 6:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > 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 (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: > > > 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 > > > On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: > > > 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 07:04:46 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 04:04:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] How business squandered economic recovery Message-ID: A must read report https://finance.yahoo.com/news/we-squandered-major-economic-recovery-harvard-professor-142245851.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Dec 19 08:30:30 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:30:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for all of the comments and suggested edits on this second statement, this time addressed to the ICANN Board. I've made a few revisions to our statement in light of your comments. There was one change I did not make, and I'd like to explain why. I personally felt uncomfortable including a link to the 2001 Board resolution that was shared in this thread, as I can't be certain that it was not later retracted. The ICANN website does not make it easy for me to cross-reference the status of a resolution (though I did try), and I think there is a possibility that the resolution in question only lasted a few months. As it could cause embarrassment if we relied on something not in effect, I think it better not to include it. But, if I am wrong, and the resolution is in effect, please let me know. The latest draft of our statement is pasted below my name. Thanks again for all your input! Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline == To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations and others of a non-commercial character who did not fit within the definitions of the original top-level domains like .COM, .GOV, or .EDU. In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender should ISOC persist in its desire to separate itself from PIR. Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[1615] If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls, lack of content neutrality guarantees, and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[1716]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[1817], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our letter. We are available to answer any clarifying questions. About the Internet Governance Caucus The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. Please see more information on the Internet Governance Caucus here: https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/ [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ [8] Netherlands (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. [1516] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm [1617] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. [1718] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, December 16, 2019 9:22 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > I support the message > > Aaron > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:18 Sylvain Baya, wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Please see my comments below (inline)... >> >> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a écrit : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your consideration. Thanks! >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> === >> >> Many thanks dear Ayden. >> >>> To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN >>> >>> Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN >>> >>> We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] >>> >>> Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] >>> >>> The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations. >> >> ...{i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which provides a >> service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a >> need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for illustration : >> >> “The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be constituted >> by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet community which >> is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to commercial's or for-profit >> entities).” >> >>> In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] >> >> ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial error ; though, understandable >> because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and members of the >> 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... >> >>> The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental organizations. >> >> ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which provides a service >> to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is a need to preferably >> rephrased like this : >> >> “The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is intended to be >> constituted by non-governmental organizations.” >> >>> Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through evidence of NGO status.”[5] >>> >>> Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. >>> >>> Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. >>> >>> We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for public tender. >> >> ...good advice/request ! >> The tone is well measured. >> >> Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : >> >> "...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate itself from the PIR, >> in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing model." >> >>> Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] >> >> ...good piece ! >> >>> Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of the tender process, >> >> ...i firmly oppose this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency with the fundamental >> logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this draft. If EC becomes, >> suddently, a non-profit (Beneficial Corp ???), it would be great to recommend it...not before ! >> >> ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by the 'dealer' of the PIR : >> [...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids during the 2002 .ORG >> registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that the ISC (Internet >> Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : ‘too much >> non-profit !’ >> And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit company. [...] >> >> ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : >> >> “In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [*][**], we firmly recommend >> that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that tender process.” >> “In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the non-commercial >> Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG registry (via >> a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please act accordingly.” >> __ >> [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 >> [**]: >> >>> as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. >> >> ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. >> >>> However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. >>> >>>> >>> >>> This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] >> >> I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this letter. It's not about >> that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, i can formulate as >> follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the development of >> the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not only a single >> stakeholder in the Internet community... >> >>> We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] >> >> ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. >> >>> If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. >>> >>> Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. >>> >>> Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital firm. >>> >>> Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. >>> >>> About the Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>> [[Description to go here]]] >>> >>> [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ >>> >>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 >>> >>> [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en >> >> see section D.1 & D.2 >> >> >>> [4] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 >> >> ...what a great find ! >> >>> [5] https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm >>> >>> [6] https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry >>> >>> [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and https://savedotorg.org/ >>> >>> [8] Netherlands (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), Switzerland (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), Portugal (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) >>> >>> [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html >>> >>> [10] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 >>> >>> [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a >>> >>> [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 >>> >>> [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy >> >> >> >>> [14] See page 10, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf >>> >>> [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. >>> >>> [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >> >> >> >>> [17] Page 16, https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. >>> >>> [18] https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 >> >> Done ! thanks. >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: >>> >>>> I support that too. >>>> Best, >>>> Niels >>>> On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>> >>>>> 100% in support. >>>>> WISDOM DONKOR >>>>> President & CEO >>>>> Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation >> >>>>> [...] >> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. >>>>> >>>>> Is there support for this proposal? >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> --- >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Niels ten Oever >>>> Researcher and PhD Candidate >>>> Datactive Research Group >>>> University of Amsterdam >>>> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >>>> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> [...] >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Thu Dec 19 10:13:30 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:13:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19 In-Reply-To: References: <20191218130321.GE21159@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Here are a few responses to those who responded to my email from Tuesday: *George — * 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. *John —* 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." 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. 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. *Any talk of Ethos/PIR stewardship councils or advisory bodies are red herrings and should be rejected outright.* 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). *Milton —* 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. 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. 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. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:22 AM Wisdom Donkor wrote: > +1 also, > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 5:36 AM parminder wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Tapani, you put it extremely well, and pithily. That is the core issue. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> parminder >> On 18/12/19 6:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> 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 (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon 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 | accessnow.org >> >> @solomonbrett >> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB >> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB >> >> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights >> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director >> Access Now | accessnow.org >> >> @solomonbrett >> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB >> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB >> >> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights >> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline > 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 > wrote: >> >> >> 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 05:00:28 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:00:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> References: <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I believe Joly is sharing public information. I remember reading the same on one of ISOC's internal member mailing lists. I cannot remember if it was shared by Sullivan or Camarillo, but I believe it was one of them. That said, I personally believe that the Board has made a short-sighted decision here and one which undermines ISOC's own mission. Perhaps the biggest contribution ISOC made to an open Internet governed for the benefit of all was maintaining a portion of the Domain Name System (DNS) that was not under commercial control. Without a public portion of the DNS, there will soon be no element of the DNS that is free of commercial pressures. .CHARITY, .FOUNDATION, .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG - the only top level domains dedicated to non-commercial interests - will now all be owned by entities connected to the same venture capitalist. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 09:55, parminder wrote: > On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> Hi Mwenda, >> >> My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what they did. Take expert advice >> >> Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this offer came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert advice, The advice was > > Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly available... What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. > > As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert advice exists. > >> 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, > > You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This is especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be a global body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations among US insiders? > >> 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. > > Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your logic. > > ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule exists as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a public or community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule pre-established for it bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling business. But this does not mean that it can avoid observing the normal good practice, especially as involving a public or community asset, which most people take PIR to be, and is also indicated in its name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but its secret sale of .org is absolutely against the spirit of community trusteeship that it is supposed to embody. > > It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek accountability from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society organisations like Girl Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it will be greatly amiss if we do not take any stand in this matter. > > parminder > >> Joly >> >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: >> >>> If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the value of .org way beyond the $2b mark >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: >>> >>>> Folks >>>> >>>> I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. >>>> >>>> When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." Reasonable people might decide that $1B+ for an organization committed to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've discussed. >>>> >>>> I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother with this list or the ISOC board. >>>> >>>> It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our members are not local. >>>> >>>> My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. >>>> >>>> I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than that. >>>> >>>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down >>>> >>>> [Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down](https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down) >>>> >>>> Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or even delays. >>>> >>>> If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public discussion. >>>> >>>> I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. >>>> >>>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving >>>> >>>> [IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving](https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving) >>>> >>>> "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." >>>> >>>> The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. [Monika Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance,"](https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Missing-Link-Die-Rettung-des-Internet-Governance-Forum-4594822.htm) writes, "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes a highly chaotic program. >>>> >>>> From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in charge, presumably the ITU. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >> List help: >> [](https://riseup.net/lists) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 10:30:48 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:30:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] How business squandered economic recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not surprising at all Carolina, but thank you for sharing. I look forward to seeing what happens to our late-stage capitalistic dystopia in the 2020s. Have a good holiday! Best, -Michael On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:05 PM Carolina Rossini < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > A must read report > > > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/we-squandered-major-economic-recovery-harvard-professor-142245851.html > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Dec 19 10:53:08 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:53:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: PIR Stewardship: Community Webinar #pirstewardship Message-ID: Just about to start. A transcript will be made available, later ISOC Live posted: "Today, Thursday December 19 2019, at 11:00 EST (16:00 UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR) and Ethos Capital will convene a Community Webinar to discuss the planned Stewardship Council and other proposed programs to serve the .ORG Community. All inter" [image: livestream] Today,* Thursday December 19 2019*, at *11:00 EST* (16:00 UTC), the *Public Interest Registr*y (PIR) and *Ethos Capital * will convene a *Community Webinar * to discuss the planned Stewardship Council and other proposed programs to serve the .ORG Community. All interested parties are invited to *join the webinar *, which will also be webcast and archived on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/pirstewardship * *ZOOM: https://pir.zoom.us/j/404269014 * *MORE INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/ * *TWITTER: #pirstewardship @PIRegistry @ethos_capital* *Permalink*: https://isoc.live/11608/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Dec 19 12:51:57 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:51:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org Message-ID: Dear Gonzalo Camarillo and Andrew Sullivan, I hope this finds you well. As a co-coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), I am writing on behalf of the IGC regarding the sale of .org. Please find attached a letter from the IGC. Do not hesitate to contact me, or Bruna Martins dos Santos (cc'd) as co-coordinator, should you have any questions. Best wishes Sheetal. -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re_ the sale of .org.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 94158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Dec 19 12:59:17 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:59:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. Best Sheetal *Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by many.Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace.Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* *Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ * On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Hi Ian > I do agree with you. > > Let us also take time off to check on our health. > > Regards > Remmy > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: > >> This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >> rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting >> us back to a strong presence. >> >> I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >> sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how >> respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "parminder" >> To: governance at lists.riseup.net >> Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >> >> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >> >> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >> >> parminder >> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >> >> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for this >> irreparable loss. >> >> Such is life! >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> Shahzad >> >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >> >> Ayden >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >> >> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >> >> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >> Shah is 11 just started high school. >> >> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >> >> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >> address is as follows: >> >> Mrs Nazia Shah >> Flat 25E >> Askari 1, >> Sadder Cantt >> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >> Lahore, Pakistan >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 19 13:48:16 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:48:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: very happy with that, Sheetal. I suggest it will not be contentious and we should aim to send it fairly soon. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sheetal Kumar" To: "Remmy Nweke" Cc: "Ian Peter" ; "parminder" ; "governance" Sent: 20/12/2019 4:59:17 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >Dear all, > >Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. >Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > >Best >Sheetal > >Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, > >We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of >Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of >our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of >civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for >discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society >contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to >support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to >help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet >governance community, were also appreciated by many. > >Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, >we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have >had the opportunity to work with him. > >He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May >his soul rest in peace. > >Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > >Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > >On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke >wrote: >>Hi Ian >>I do agree with you. >> >>Let us also take time off to check on our health. >> >>Regards >>Remmy >> >>On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter >>wrote: >>>This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >>>rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in >>>getting us back to a strong presence. >>> >>>I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >>>sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging >>>how respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >>> >>>Ian >>> >>>------ Original Message ------ >>>From: "parminder" >>>To: governance at lists.riseup.net >>>Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>> >>>>So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but >>>>his efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and >>>>praiseworthy. >>>> >>>>Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >>>>through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >>>> >>>>parminder >>>> >>>>On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>>>Dear Colleagues, >>>>> >>>>>This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. >>>>>Imran was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from >>>>>Pakistan. We will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all >>>>>would value for his untiring efforts in several different spaces, >>>>>where he would represent very effectively in all the areas of his >>>>>interest. >>>>> >>>>>Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family >>>>>for this irreparable loss. >>>>> >>>>>Such is life! >>>>> >>>>>Best wishes and regards >>>>> >>>>>Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Shahzad Ahmad >>>>>Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>>>>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>>>>Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>>>>Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>>>>PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>>>> >>>>>On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>>>> >>>>>Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. >>>>>Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>>>>> >>>>>>It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>>>>passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died >>>>>>just 2 days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, >>>>>>his wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart >>>>>>attack. He was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so >>>>>>sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife >>>>>>Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently >>>>>>in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high >>>>>>school. >>>>>> >>>>>>I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet >>>>>>Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan >>>>>>Internet Governance Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats >>>>>>such as being President of the Urdu Internet Society and many >>>>>>other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in the area of >>>>>>IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. He was an >>>>>>innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>>>>>passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>>>>> >>>>>>Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their >>>>>>postal address is as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>>Mrs Nazia Shah >>>>>>Flat 25E >>>>>>Askari 1, >>>>>>Sadder Cantt >>>>>>Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>>>>Lahore, Pakistan >>>>> >>>>>--- >>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>List help: >>>>> >>>--- >>>To unsubscribe: >>>List help: >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: > > >-- > > >Sheetal Kumar >Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Dec 19 14:22:30 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:22:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sheetal: This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Dec 19 16:34:45 2019 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:34:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20191219213445.GA29334@tarvainen.info> Looks good to me, too. Tapani On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 06:48:16PM +0000, Ian Peter (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > > very happy with that, Sheetal. I suggest it will not be contentious and we > should aim to send it fairly soon. > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sheetal Kumar" > To: "Remmy Nweke" > Cc: "Ian Peter" ; "parminder" > ; "governance" > Sent: 20/12/2019 4:59:17 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. > > Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > > > Best > > Sheetal > > > > Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, > > > > We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of > > Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of > > our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of > > civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to > > support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to > > help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet > > governance community, were also appreciated by many. > > > > Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, we > > consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had > > the opportunity to work with him. > > > > He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May > > his soul rest in peace. > > > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > > > > Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke > > wrote: > > > Hi Ian > > > I do agree with you. > > > > > > Let us also take time off to check on our health. > > > > > > Regards > > > Remmy > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter > > > wrote: > > > > This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the > > > > recent rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were > > > > pivotal in getting us back to a strong presence. > > > > > > > > I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and > > > > expressed sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while > > > > acknowledging how respected and appreciated Imran was within > > > > IGC. > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > > > From: "parminder" > > > > To: governance at lists.riseup.net > > > > Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > > > > > > > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran > > > > > but his efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably > > > > > energetic and praiseworthy. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from > > > > > the IGC through whoever is able to make contact with his > > > > > family. > > > > > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to > > > > > > hear this. Imran was an untiring worker for Global > > > > > > Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will agree and a > > > > > > lot of times disagree but we all would value for his > > > > > > untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he > > > > > > would represent very effectively in all the areas of his > > > > > > interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with > > > > > > the family for this irreparable loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > Such is life! > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahzad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > > > > > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > > > > > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > > > > > > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > > > > > > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. > > > > > > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you > > > > > > > of the sudden passing of our dear friend and > > > > > > > colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > > > > > > > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Last night before going to bed, I received a > > > > > > > message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed > > > > > > > away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > > > > > > > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so > > > > > > > sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived > > > > > > > by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter > > > > > > > Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed > > > > > > > Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the > > > > > > > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the > > > > > > > convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum > > > > > > > hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being > > > > > > > President of the Urdu Internet Society and many > > > > > > > other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in > > > > > > > the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two > > > > > > > letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many > > > > > > > patents and some pending. He was always passionate > > > > > > > about people, development and ensuring access for > > > > > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his > > > > > > > family, their postal address is as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs Nazia Shah > > > > > > > Flat 25E > > > > > > > Askari 1, > > > > > > > Sadder Cantt > > > > > > > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > > > > > > > Lahore, Pakistan > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > > List help: > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > List help: > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sheetal Kumar > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 16:37:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:37:12 -0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: <20191219213445.GA29334@tarvainen.info> References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> <20191219213445.GA29334@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Also content with the drafted message. I believe that, unless anyone objects to us sending this letter to Imran, Sheetal and I will send it tomorrow morning. best regards, Bruna Santos Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 à 19:35, Tapani Tarvainen a écrit : > Looks good to me, too. > > Tapani > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 06:48:16PM +0000, Ian Peter ( > ian.peter at ianpeter.com) wrote: > > > > very happy with that, Sheetal. I suggest it will not be contentious and > we > > should aim to send it fairly soon. > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From: "Sheetal Kumar" > > To: "Remmy Nweke" > > Cc: "Ian Peter" ; "parminder" > > ; "governance" > > Sent: 20/12/2019 4:59:17 AM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. > > > Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > > > > > Best > > > Sheetal > > > > > > Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, > > > > > > We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of > > > Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of > > > our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of > > > civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for > > > discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society > > > contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to > > > support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to > > > help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet > > > governance community, were also appreciated by many. > > > > > > Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, > we > > > consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had > > > the opportunity to work with him. > > > > > > He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May > > > his soul rest in peace. > > > > > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > > > > > > Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Ian > > > > I do agree with you. > > > > > > > > Let us also take time off to check on our health. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Remmy > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter > > > > wrote: > > > > > This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the > > > > > recent rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were > > > > > pivotal in getting us back to a strong presence. > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and > > > > > expressed sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while > > > > > acknowledging how respected and appreciated Imran was within > > > > > IGC. > > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > > > > From: "parminder" > > > > > To: governance at lists.riseup.net > > > > > Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice > > > > > > > > > > > So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran > > > > > > but his efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably > > > > > > energetic and praiseworthy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from > > > > > > the IGC through whoever is able to make contact with his > > > > > > family. > > > > > > > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to > > > > > > > hear this. Imran was an untiring worker for Global > > > > > > > Internet Governance from Pakistan. We will agree and a > > > > > > > lot of times disagree but we all would value for his > > > > > > > untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he > > > > > > > would represent very effectively in all the areas of his > > > > > > > interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with > > > > > > > the family for this irreparable loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such is life! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shahzad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > > > > > > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > > > > > > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan > > > > > > > Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup > > > > > > > Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 > D92F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ayden > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > > > On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. > > > > > > > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Fellow IGC Members, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you > > > > > > > > of the sudden passing of our dear friend and > > > > > > > > colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 days > > > > > > > > after celebrating his 50th Birthday. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Last night before going to bed, I received a > > > > > > > > message from Nazia, his wife that Imran had passed > > > > > > > > away the day before due to a heart attack. He was > > > > > > > > buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so > > > > > > > > sad and my heart is broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived > > > > > > > > by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, daughter > > > > > > > > Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed > > > > > > > > Ali Imran Shah is 11 just started high school. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the > > > > > > > > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Imran is the > > > > > > > > convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance Forum > > > > > > > > hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being > > > > > > > > President of the Urdu Internet Society and many > > > > > > > > other organisations he founded. His advocacy work in > > > > > > > > the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two > > > > > > > > letter limitation. He was an innovator and held many > > > > > > > > patents and some pending. He was always passionate > > > > > > > > about people, development and ensuring access for > > > > > > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should you wish to send your condolences to his > > > > > > > > family, their postal address is as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mrs Nazia Shah > > > > > > > > Flat 25E > > > > > > > > Askari 1, > > > > > > > > Sadder Cantt > > > > > > > > Sarfraz Rafiqui Road > > > > > > > > Lahore, Pakistan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > > > List help: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > List help: > > > > --- > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > List help: > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Sheetal Kumar > > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > > > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 16:59:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:59:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Love the message, Sheetal. Suggest that this is accompanied by a card. On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, 5:59 pm Sheetal Kumar, wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. > Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > > > > > *Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to express > our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a > very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet > Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations > whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the > network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow > and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by > many.Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, > we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had > the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you > strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace.Members of the > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* > > *Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > * > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > >> Hi Ian >> I do agree with you. >> >> Let us also take time off to check on our health. >> >> Regards >> Remmy >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >>> rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting >>> us back to a strong presence. >>> >>> I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >>> sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how >>> respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "parminder" >>> To: governance at lists.riseup.net >>> Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>> >>> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >>> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >>> >>> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >>> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >>> >>> parminder >>> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >>> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >>> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >>> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >>> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >>> >>> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>> this irreparable loss. >>> >>> Such is life! >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shahzad Ahmad >>> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>> >>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>> address is as follows: >>> >>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>> Flat 25E >>> Askari 1, >>> Sadder Cantt >>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>> Lahore, Pakistan >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Dec 19 17:17:44 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:17:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89F026A5-8DEE-4A54-8F9A-0F4F86206D03@pch.net> Milton is right on all points. I’ve been very short of time, but he’s clearly articulated approximately the same set of objections that occurred to me. Complaining about transparency comes across as “I’m offended that I wasn’t in the room” rather than “this is a bad outcome.” The letter needs to concern itself clearly and exclusively with our desired outcome. Else that, which is the most important point, will get lost in the noise. -Bill > On Dec 19, 2019, at 20:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >  > Sheetal: > This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > > MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. > > PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > > MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. > > PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. > > MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > > PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > > MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > > However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > > MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. > > We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > > MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. > > MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 05:02:37 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:32:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> To further build the case why IGC should take a clear stand: We must understand that unique names and addresses on the Internet are basically a common or public good... Its value is not created by anyone to be able to profit from it, it belongs to all, the logic of which is self evident. For this reason, core gTLDs, esp as carrying denominations that are essential to definition of some social entities, like .org, or .edu, .health, etc, should also be common or public goods. These should ideally be managed as non -profit -- on no-profit no-loss basis. But, in these neo-liberal times when even non profits are advised to work on market principles, even if for efficiency sake we are to take the services of a for-profit to run this commons/ public service it should be so arranged that the profits, or service fees, are quite modest. But the talk of 1 billion or 2 billion dollars for running .org, which today is much simpler activity than it used to be -- basically keeping a directory, allocating  non-duplicating names, and maintaining a server that periodically confirms to ISPs the addresses under .org -- is simply ridiculous!!! A billion dollar is a very big money, esp for developing countries... The very few start ups that may cross that amount in evaluation immediately become  national stars. People, or even, orgs making money as rents from our commons assets is basically a tax upon us.... So it does not matter if it is $5 or $10 more.... The question is why should I take any tax increase at all, when that money goes to some US based insiders, enjoying access to a perpetual global tax. Why should it be not on no loss no profit basis, or at the most a modest service fees for the activity operator. And when the tax collection system is to migrate from a non profit, claiming to be the legitimate global representative of the technical community, to a newly, and somewhat shady-ily, formed US business, by ex ICANN insiders, there is obviously reason to be concerned and oppose this deal. These are the key questions to be asked and discussed, especially in the civil society dedicated to IG issues, which discussion one hopes will be a little different from the discussions taking place among business and technical groups. And it is primarily IGC's responsibility to do it. parminder On 02/12/19 2:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> Hi Mwenda, >> >> My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what >> they did. Take expert advice  >> >> Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but >> nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this >> offer came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert >> advice, The advice was > > Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly > available... What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. > > As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one > wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond > expert advice exists. > >> 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, > > You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a > consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This > is especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be > a global body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations > among US insiders? > >> 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos >> had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and >> it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to >> negotiate. > > Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make > secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce > the morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get > your logic. > > ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule > exists as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a > public or community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule > pre-established for it bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling > business. But this does not mean that it can avoid observing the > normal good practice, especially as involving a public or community > asset, which most people take PIR to be, and is also indicated in its > name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but its secret sale of .org > is absolutely against the spirit of community trusteeship that it is > supposed to embody. > > It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek > accountability from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society > organisations like Girl Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it > will  be greatly amiss if we do not take any stand in this matter. > > parminder > > >> >> Joly >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva >> > wrote: >> >> If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction >> as the best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few >> overheads at $1.3b is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, >> the return on investment will be in less than 10 years. A >> simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the value of .org way >> beyond the $2b mark >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein > > wrote: >> >> Folks >> >> I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of >> the most skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some >> important harm. That said, I have written they are honorable >> and not corrupt.  >> >> When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the >> below, including "If I were on the board, I might have voted >> for the deal." Reasonable people _might_ decide that $1B+ for >> an organization committed to the Internet for everybody is >> enough to balance the harms we've discussed.  >> >> I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on >> this list are likewise honorable, even if I think their >> positions wrong. There are crooks in this world, including >> many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother with this >> list or the ISOC board.   >> >> It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission >> and open internal processes. ISOC is very far away from >> living up to our principles. If you're not an ISOC member, do >> join and choose a chapter. If there's no chapter where you >> are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our >> members are not local. >> >> My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether >> Massive MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, >> please ask. (It is, per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or >> what's really going on in 5G.  >> >> I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a >> session on IoT which was completely out of touch. To be >> widely adopted, IoT devices need to cost $2-$5. The >> suggestions on that panel would cost more than that.  >> >> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down >> >> >> Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal >> Goes Down >> >> >> Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at >> https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of reporters, 3 ISOC >> Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are >> strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just >> revealed it would get 1.13 Billion from very rich US >> investors for .org. That is enough money that honorable >> people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal >> should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or >> ICANN blocks or even delays. >> >> If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've >> been among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and >> many other key details were totally secret. I would have >> demanded much more information and public discussion.  >> >> I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to >> heal the rift with the chapters and restore the public >> perception of ISOC.  >> >> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving >> >> >> IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & >> ISOC-NY board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, >> I do not believe the IGF would disappear. If something were >> to happen, or if in the future it was not renewed by the UN >> General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a bottom-up >> manner as an international place to bring the various groups >> together. I also said that I considered the National and >> Regional Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF >> because they brought "Internet Governance" to the national >> and regional level."  >> >> The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is >> talk, talk, talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to >> have direct results. Monika Ermert, the best-informed >> commentator on "Internet Governance," >>  writes, >> "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out >> of the crisis, which has been around for a few years because >> it only debates and does not act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist >> dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes a highly chaotic >> program. >> >> From the beginning, governments did not want to give away >> power. I've reported that the non-government participants >> have come overwhelmingly from the US and allies, as well as >> some others in general agreement. The non-government >> attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global >> south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet >> users. Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally >> representative group in charge, presumably the ITU.  >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 19 18:02:14 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:02:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] How business squandered economic recovery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course not surprising. ;-) But always helpful to have data. Happy holidays! On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:31 AM Michael J. Oghia wrote: > Not surprising at all Carolina, but thank you for sharing. I look forward > to seeing what happens to our late-stage capitalistic dystopia in the 2020s. > > Have a good holiday! > > Best, > -Michael > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:05 PM Carolina Rossini < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> A must read report >> >> >> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/we-squandered-major-economic-recovery-harvard-professor-142245851.html >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- *__Carolina A. Rossini, JD, LLM, MBA* *Skype:* carolina.rossini_2 | Twitter: @carolinarossini https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolinarossini/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 19 19:20:44 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:20:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.E7BB341A-A0D5-4B39-9951-96CCA1C4E36D@mail.outlook.com> This deal stinks but for literally none of the “reasons” mentioned in the letter. Nor is the anti commercial / business tone appropriate --srs On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:52 AM +0530, "Mueller, Milton L" wrote: Sheetal: This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below:   Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 20 00:55:29 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:25:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] I just listened to the video teleconference about Ethos and the proposed new .org registry. In-Reply-To: <02cf01d5b695$ae355210$0a9ff630$@thinkmetrics.com> References: <02cf01d5b695$ae355210$0a9ff630$@thinkmetrics.com> Message-ID: <204152b3-4ae4-9f02-1d4a-022ee405af7f@itforchange.net> I thought the below may be useful to the people here ... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] I just listened to the video teleconference about Ethos and the proposed new .org registry. Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:56:46 -0000 From: Brandt Dainow via InternetPolicy Reply-To: bd at thinkmetrics.com Organisation: Thinkmetrics To: 'Jay Sulzberger' , ISOC Internet Policy Here's a quick summary of my understanding of what has emerged from the webinar with the PIR and Ethos Capital: They all agree that .org's are different and unique and that as a consequence, so is the PIR. Eric's of Ethos Capital's words were that .org says "that organisation is out there because there is something they believe in". (For the purposes of this forum, I suggest this settles the question of whether the PIR is just another registry business or whether .orgs are different and deserving of special treatment - the people running it, and the people buying it, say it is different. Furthermore, comments below indicate they think that difference is what gives the PIR its value.) The PIR does not have a domain squatting problem or any other of the issues associated with commercial TLD's. PIR was eager to point out how clean the registry is, and that has always been the cleanest TLD of all. In the PIR's view there is nothing within their activity which needs to be fixed, this is all about expansion and enhancement. The PIR will be reconstituted as a Public Benefit LLC. According to PIR's legal council, this means that the PIR's current mission focus of "offering low-cost services to non-profit organisations" will be enshrined in the company responsibilities, thus overriding the primary responsibility to the shareholders. While I understand this to be the aim of the PBLLC legislation, it is not certain that it will have this effect in practice - legal scholars differ on this point and it has yet to be tried in courts. (See https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1919&context= facpubs "Is the Public Benefit Corporation Trivial?") It may be that being a Public Benefit LLC will lock them down to the terms of their formation, but we have yet to see what those terms are. It's possible they could be written in manner which allows for the PIR to do almost anything, or in a manner which is open to different interpretations. It is also possible that they won't be very binding anyway. There will a Stewardship Council (SC) - initially appointed by the PIR, and soon. Size of the SC is unknown. The SC will recruit new members. Term of membership will be 1-3 years. Members will not be appointed by the PIR or voted in by any democratic system. As I understand it, once populated by people approved by the PIR, the SC will become self-sustaining. Members will not be paid. Companies cannot be members. The SC will take input from the .org community. How is yet to be determined. It is unclear whether the SC will "interpret" or poll .org opinions or pass them on unmodified or simply use them (in a manner determined by them) to formulate their own SC opinions. The SC will (I think) have some authority over launching of some new PIR initiatives. It will be able to give an opinion on price rises, but not stop them. My understanding is that the SC is an important branding exercise for Ethos, which is not to say it's illusionary, but there may be some spin here. Eric (Ethos) said "it's mission critical for people to understand that we are going to be hands off . because if the public believe that is not the case it very much damages the brand, the long-term brand, of the business" So - the purpose of the SC is to interact with the PIR board is to ensure the .org community are happy with the way the PIR acts, but I think they are spinning how much limitation there will really be over what the PIR does. The SC will be initially composed of Ethos appointees, who will almost certainly share the same vision of things as Ethos, and will then pick future SC members. So it's difficult to see how such a body will come to include a representative range of viewpoints. All of this is meaningless if the .org community can't communicate its views. This requires that the SC has a proper communication channel, and that the SC fairly and accurately passes those views to the PIR. The big issue here is how the .org community communicates. First, there seems to be an assumption the .org community will have a single opinion on every issue. With millions of members, that's almost certainly never going to be the case. So a range of opinions needs to be represented proportionally. That requires specific forms of communication channel - not all structures will allow for that. It's also unclear how a .org community can even be brought into existence. The only thing they all have in common is ownership of a .org domain name. How does one get the local sports team, a national hospital and an international charity communicating together and what are their common interests here? Several times it was mentioned how important it was to bring the leaders of major NGO's and charities into the process, so there is a danger it will simply become a bunch of professional leaders of very large enterprises talking amongst themselves in an elitist filter bubble, especially if membership of the SC is by invitation from within the SC. I think it unlikely they would invite into their ranks anyone who has made them feel uncomfortable with tough questions and strong criticisms. Finally, and perhaps most important - what the PIR and Ethos Capital propose does not address the fundamental objection. It addresses concerns people have regarding foreseeable harms from the shift from not-for-profit to profit. However, it still leaves the PIR as a profit-oriented company. Some people object to that. Not because of what we can imagine could go wrong, but on principle. This principle may be founded on fear of unknowable consequences - in which we accept the future will always surprise us, so we avoid opening the door to risks we can't predict by selling the PIR to a small group of billionaires, and thus putting the PIR into play as a tradable market commodity. Alternatively, some people simply believe a society is a better one if there are parts of it which are not run for profit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 01:57:39 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:57:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <245207890.4792584.1575874161301@mail.yahoo.com> <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a écrit : > > Sheetal: > > This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: 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 /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. > > > Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > > MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. > > PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > > MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. > > PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. > > MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > > PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > > MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > > However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > > MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. > > We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > > MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. > > MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. > > From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 02:37:24 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:37:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 6:59 PM, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > > Dear all, > > Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. Thanks dear Sheetal, ...i think we should insert some words about his leading engagement in the tech team. Then, i propose the followings : “We were seeing Sheetal as a key resource for IGC, particularly because he was efficiently leading our technical team since july 2019 [1][2], until his lastest email [3] sent to our mailing list on thursday 12th, december 2019, 23:12:46, UTC.” __ [1]: [2]: [3]: Shalom, --sb. > Best > Sheetal > > Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, > > We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by many. > > Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had the opportunity to work with him. > > He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace. > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > > Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke wrote: >> >> [...] > > > -- > > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 03:00:52 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nadira Alaraj (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:00:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thank you very much Sheetal, It is very well drafted, The sooner to reach his family in their grieving time it would be of help. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 19:59 Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. > Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > Best > Sheetal > > > > > > > > > > *Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to express > our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a > very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet > Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations > whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for > representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance > processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the > network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow > and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by > many.Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, > we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had > the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you > strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace.Members of the > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* > > *Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > * > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > >> Hi Ian >> I do agree with you. >> >> Let us also take time off to check on our health. >> >> Regards >> Remmy >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >>> rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting >>> us back to a strong presence. >>> >>> I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >>> sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how >>> respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "parminder" >>> To: governance at lists.riseup.net >>> Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>> >>> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >>> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >>> >>> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >>> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >>> >>> parminder >>> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >>> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >>> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >>> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >>> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >>> >>> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>> this irreparable loss. >>> >>> Such is life! >>> >>> Best wishes and regards >>> >>> Shahzad >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shahzad Ahmad >>> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>> >>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>> >>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>> >>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>> >>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>> >>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>> address is as follows: >>> >>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>> Flat 25E >>> Askari 1, >>> Sadder Cantt >>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>> Lahore, Pakistan >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 20 06:47:42 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:47:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you, I shall send it today. If an Urdu speaker is able to translate it to Urdu at some point over the next three hours, I think that would also be a nice gesture. No worries if not as I understand it is late notice. I'll send it at 3 PM UTC. Best Sheetal. On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 08:01, Nadira Alaraj wrote: > Thank you very much Sheetal, > It is very well drafted, > The sooner to reach his family in their grieving time it would be of help. > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 19:59 Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. >> Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to >> express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran >> was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet >> Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations >> whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >> processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the >> network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow >> and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by >> many.Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, >> we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had >> the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you >> strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace.Members of the >> Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* >> >> *Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ >> * >> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ian >>> I do agree with you. >>> >>> Let us also take time off to check on our health. >>> >>> Regards >>> Remmy >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >>>> rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting >>>> us back to a strong presence. >>>> >>>> I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >>>> sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how >>>> respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "parminder" >>>> To: governance at lists.riseup.net >>>> Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>>> >>>> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >>>> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >>>> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >>>> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >>>> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >>>> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >>>> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >>>> >>>> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>>> this irreparable loss. >>>> >>>> Such is life! >>>> >>>> Best wishes and regards >>>> >>>> Shahzad >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Shahzad Ahmad >>>> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>>> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>>> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>>> >>>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>>> >>>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>>> >>>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>>> >>>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>>> address is as follows: >>>> >>>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>>> Flat 25E >>>> Askari 1, >>>> Sadder Cantt >>>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>> Lahore, Pakistan >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>> > >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 07:33:27 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:33:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my.comments below (inline)... 2019-12-19 14:30 UTC+01:00, Ayden Férdeline : > Hi all, > > Thanks for all of the comments and suggested edits on this second statement, Dear Ayden Many thanks for the useful editorial's work. > this time addressed to the ICANN Board. I've made a few revisions to our > statement in light of your comments. ...again thanks ! > There was one change I did not make, > and I'd like to explain why. I personally felt uncomfortable including a > link to the 2001 Board resolution that was shared in this thread, as I can't > be certain that it was not later retracted. The ICANN website does not make > it easy for me to cross-reference the status of a resolution (though I did > try), and I think there is a possibility that the resolution in question > only lasted a few months. ...let me try to clarify something : •— • i have double-checked all the links suggested :-) • where i have proposed a replacement for a link, the contents and location of the two links were compared first. • So, you don't have to be afraid, because i did the work. That should be exactly the way, this Caucus works : someones are actively working for the community. For instance : you are doing the editorial work for us. Thanks! • Please replace all the links i have suggested : Exemples : Replace this “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy” by this “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives : ” Also, below, the link imply they should check all the criteria, but the only relevant is criterion 7 “[16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm” so “[16] ” •— > As it could cause embarrassment if we relied on > something not in effect, I think it better not to include it. ...eh ! i disagree Ayden :-) > But if I am wrong, and the resolution is in effect, please let me know. ...i have started to explain it above, and i can add that : It is not our role to verify more, if something published as minutes of an Org is no longer applicable. If it was the case it would have been easy to check (i guess). Simply because they adopted the draft as it was ; then they published in various location (minutes, news, blog,...) and I prefer the minutes and the source of the document the minutes have indicated. Same contents, but remember what the Secretary of InternetSociety.ORG have said : I don't know where this for and by come, it's just a blog... Thank GOD ! we have the direct source now : the April 2001 minutes ;-) [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 [**]: > The latest draft of our statement is pasted below my name. > Thanks again for all your input! Please consider my comments above. Hope this could help. Thanks. Shalom, --sb. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > == > > To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN > > Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN > > We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to > the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As > you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos > Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, > and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] > > Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their > email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just > domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network > which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we > believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made > following consultation with impacted registrants and the global > non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, > which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the > delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] > > The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations and > others of a non-commercial character who did not fit within the definitions > of the original top-level domains like .COM, .GOV, or .EDU. In 2001, ICANN > stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built > registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and > enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry > operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 > of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that > Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be > used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be > used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by > ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] > > The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental > organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN > and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through > non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through > evidence of NGO status.”[5] > > Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect > communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of > groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked > outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and > most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen > two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 > signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue > statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale > has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street > Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. > The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim > Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to > question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question > the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We > are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. > > Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG > Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights > and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the > same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. > > We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for > performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for > public tender should ISOC persist in its desire to separate itself from PIR. > > Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust > Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a > letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for > renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent > operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] > > Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of > the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and > co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we > do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire > these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. > > This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track > record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have > committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe > a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for > .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our > resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration > in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was > affordability.[1615] > > If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of > assets the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to Ethos Capital, we > believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that > relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack > of adequate price controls, lack of content neutrality guarantees, and other > specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of > transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. > > Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name > registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains > registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[1716]) and > any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business > cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic > Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them > $50,000 to move to another top level domain[1817], which would stretch the > capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. > > Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner > that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital > firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our letter. We are > available to answer any clarifying questions. > > About the Internet Governance Caucus > > The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. Please > see more information on the Internet Governance Caucus here: > https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/ > > [1] > https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ > > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 > > [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en > > [4] > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 > > [5] > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm > > [6] > https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry > > [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and > https://savedotorg.org/ > > [8] Netherlands > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), > Switzerland > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), > Portugal > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) > > [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html > > [10] > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a > > [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 > > [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy > > [14] See page 10, > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf > > [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital > states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it > comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to > 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not > raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG > domains double in price every five years. > > [1516] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > [1617] Page 16, > https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. > > [1718] > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, December 16, 2019 9:22 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > wrote: > >> I support the message >> >> Aaron >> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:18 Sylvain Baya, >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please see my comments below (inline)... >>> >>> Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a >>>> statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your >>>> consideration. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> === >>> >>> Many thanks dear Ayden. >>> >>>> To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN >>>> >>>> Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN >>>> >>>> We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation >>>> to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos >>>> Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) >>>> announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, >>>> including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] >>>> >>>> Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for >>>> their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than >>>> just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a >>>> network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and >>>> individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs >>>> must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and >>>> the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent >>>> with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is >>>> a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the >>>> community.”[2] >>>> >>>> The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit >>>> organizations. >>> >>> ...{i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which >>> provides a >>> service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think >>> there is a >>> need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for >>> illustration : >>> >>> “The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be >>> constituted >>> by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet >>> community which >>> is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to >>> commercial's or for-profit >>> entities).” >>> >>>> In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a >>>> new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its >>>> original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended >>>> function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] >>>> Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between >>>> ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s >>>> designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole >>>> discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating >>>> costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator >>>> of the .ORG registry.”[4] >>> >>> ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial >>> error ; though, understandable >>> because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and >>> members of the >>> 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... >>> >>>> The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is >>>> non-governmental organizations. >>> >>> ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the >>> Registry which provides a service >>> to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is >>> a need to preferably >>> rephrased like this : >>> >>> “The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is >>> intended to be >>> constituted by non-governmental organizations.” >>> >>>> Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR >>>> states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through >>>> non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or >>>> through evidence of NGO status.”[5] >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and >>>> indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial >>>> number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has >>>> sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s >>>> largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the >>>> sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more >>>> than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society >>>> chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet >>>> Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], >>>> in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to >>>> mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by >>>> Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted >>>> long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the >>>> Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and >>>> the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected >>>> non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. >>>> >>>> Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the >>>> .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its >>>> rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN >>>> do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. >>>> >>>> We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for >>>> performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for >>>> public tender. >>> >>> ...good advice/request ! >>> The tone is well measured. >>> >>> Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : >>> >>> "...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate >>> itself from the PIR, >>> in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing >>> model." >>> >>>> Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust >>>> Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a >>>> letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding >>>> for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the >>>> incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] >>> >>> ...good piece ! >>> >>>> Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part >>>> of the tender process, >>> >>> ...i firmly oppose this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency with >>> the fundamental >>> logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this >>> draft. If EC becomes, >>> suddently, a non-profit (Beneficial Corp ???), it would be great to >>> recommend it...not before ! >>> >>> ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by >>> the 'dealer' of the PIR : >>> [...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids >>> during the 2002 .ORG >>> registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that >>> the ISC (Internet >>> Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : >>> ‘too much >>> non-profit !’ >>> And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit >>> company. [...] >>> >>> ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : >>> >>> “In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [*][**], >>> we firmly recommend >>> that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that >>> tender process.” >>> “In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the >>> non-commercial >>> Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG >>> registry (via >>> a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please >>> act accordingly.” >>> __ >>> [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 >>> >>> [**]: >>> >>>> as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of >>>> non-profits and other public interest groups. >>> >>> ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. >>> >>>> However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to >>>> indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no >>>> track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because >>>> they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG >>>> domains.[15] >>> >>> I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this >>> letter. It's not about >>> that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, >>> i can formulate as >>> follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the >>> development of >>> the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not >>> only a single >>> stakeholder in the Internet community... >>> >>>> We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many >>>> organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower >>>> registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may >>>> remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG >>>> to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] >>> >>> ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. >>> >>>> If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the >>>> transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and >>>> non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and >>>> .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price >>>> controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify >>>> due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its >>>> intentions for PIR. >>>> >>>> Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain >>>> name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG >>>> domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal >>>> rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its >>>> materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American >>>> College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, >>>> estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level >>>> domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor >>>> communities and hinder our good work. >>>> >>>> Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted >>>> partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture >>>> capital firm. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. >>>> >>>> About the Internet Governance Caucus >>>> >>>> [[Description to go here]]] >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ >>>> >>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 >>>> >>>> [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en >>> >>> see section D.1 & D.2 >>> >>> >>> >>>> [4] >>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 >>> >>> ...what a great find ! >>> >>>> [5] >>>> https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm >>>> >>>> [6] >>>> https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry >>>> >>>> [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and >>>> https://savedotorg.org/ >>>> >>>> [8] Netherlands >>>> (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), >>>> Switzerland >>>> (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), >>>> Portugal >>>> (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) >>>> >>>> [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html >>>> >>>> [10] >>>> https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 >>>> >>>> [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a >>>> >>>> [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 >>>> >>>> [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy >>> >>> >>> >>>> [14] See page 10, >>>> https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf >>>> >>>> [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital >>>> states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when >>>> it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of >>>> up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as >>>> PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation >>>> would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. >>>> >>>> [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm >>> >>> >>> >>>> [17] Page 16, >>>> https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. >>>> >>>> [18] >>>> https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 >>> >>> Done ! thanks. >>> >>> Shalom, >>> --sb. >>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever >>>> lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support that too. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Niels >>>>> On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 100% in support. >>>>>> WISDOM DONKOR >>>>>> President & CEO >>>>>> Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation >>> >>>>>> [...] >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline >>>>> mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that >>>>>> we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, >>>>>> calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG >>>>>> Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its >>>>>> rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there support for this proposal? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> --- >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Niels ten Oever >>>>> Researcher and PhD Candidate >>>>> Datactive Research Group >>>>> University of Amsterdam >>>>> PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 >>>>> 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Fri Dec 20 07:47:22 2019 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:47:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: That's great, Sheetal. On Friday, December 20, 2019, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you, I shall send it today. If an Urdu speaker is able to translate > it to Urdu at some point over the next three hours, I think that would also > be a nice gesture. No worries if not as I understand it is late notice. > > I'll send it at 3 PM UTC. > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 08:01, Nadira Alaraj wrote: > >> Thank you very much Sheetal, >> It is very well drafted, >> The sooner to reach his family in their grieving time it would be of help. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 19:59 Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. >>> Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to >>> express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran >>> was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet >>> Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations >>> whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for >>> representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance >>> processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the >>> network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow >>> and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by >>> many.Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, >>> we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had >>> the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you >>> strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace.Members of the >>> Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* >>> >>> *Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ >>> * >>> >>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ian >>>> I do agree with you. >>>> >>>> Let us also take time off to check on our health. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Remmy >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 8:57 PM Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is such sad news - Imran played such a key role in the recent >>>>> rejuvenation of IGC, and his energy and enthusiasm were pivotal in getting >>>>> us back to a strong presence. >>>>> >>>>> I think it would be great if the Co coordinators wrote and expressed >>>>> sympathy to the family on behalf of our group, while acknowledging how >>>>> respected and appreciated Imran was within IGC. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "parminder" >>>>> To: governance at lists.riseup.net >>>>> Sent: 17/12/2019 1:17:01 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Funeral Notice >>>>> >>>>> So sad to hear! I hadnt met or conversed directly with Imran but his >>>>> efforts to contribute to IGC were remarkably energetic and praiseworthy. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we can convey a collective condolence message from the IGC >>>>> through whoever is able to make contact with his family. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> On 16/12/19 6:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> This is terrible and unbelievable news. Really sad to hear this. Imran >>>>> was an untiring worker for Global Internet Governance from Pakistan. We >>>>> will agree and a lot of times disagree but we all would value for his >>>>> untiring efforts in several different spaces, where he would represent very >>>>> effectively in all the areas of his interest. >>>>> >>>>> Our prayers for the departed soul and condolence with the family for >>>>> this irreparable loss. >>>>> >>>>> Such is life! >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes and regards >>>>> >>>>> Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Shahzad Ahmad >>>>> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >>>>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BytesForAllPakistan >>>>> Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup >>>>> Office Landline: +92 51 8437981 | Cell: +92 333 5236060 >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Ayden Férdeline >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm so very sorry to hear this. May he rest in peace. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Monday, December 16, 2019 11:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Fellow IGC Members, >>>>> >>>>> It is with deep sadness and regret that I inform you of the sudden >>>>> passing of our dear friend and colleague Imran Ahmed Shah who died just 2 >>>>> days after celebrating his 50th Birthday. >>>>> >>>>> Last night before going to bed, I received a message from Nazia, his >>>>> wife that Imran had passed away the day before due to a heart attack. He >>>>> was buried the same day he died. 😭😭😭😭😭😭 I am so sad and my heart is >>>>> broken 💔💔💔💔. He is survived by his wife Nazia Shah is 44 years old, >>>>> daughter Laraib Shah is 15 currently in GCSE and son Muhammed Ali Imran >>>>> Shah is 11 just started high school. >>>>> >>>>> I first met Imran when I used to jointly lead the Internet Governance >>>>> Caucus (IGC). Imran is the convenor of the Pakistan Internet Governance >>>>> Forum hails from Lahore and held many hats such as being President of the >>>>> Urdu Internet Society and many other organisations he founded. His advocacy >>>>> work in the area of IDNs led to the removal of the two letter limitation. >>>>> He was an innovator and held many patents and some pending. He was always >>>>> passionate about people, development and ensuring access for all. >>>>> >>>>> Should you wish to send your condolences to his family, their postal >>>>> address is as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Mrs Nazia Shah >>>>> Flat 25E >>>>> Askari 1, >>>>> Sadder Cantt >>>>> >>>>> Sarfraz Rafiqui Road >>>>> >>>>> Lahore, Pakistan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> > >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > -- Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Fri Dec 20 08:00:53 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:00:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Sylvain Yes that is what I was thinking as well. Can we add a sentence about his must recent work on the tech team Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein > On Dec 20, 2019, at 2:37 AM, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 6:59 PM, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > Thanks dear Sheetal, > ...i think we should insert some words about his leading engagement in > the tech team. Then, i propose the followings : > > “We were seeing Sheetal as a key resource for IGC, particularly > because he was efficiently leading our technical team since july 2019 > [1][2], until his lastest email [3] sent to our mailing list on > thursday 12th, december 2019, 23:12:46, UTC.” > __ > [1]: > [2]: > [3]: > > Shalom, > --sb. > >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, >> >> We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by many. >> >> Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had the opportunity to work with him. >> >> He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace. >> >> Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> >> Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ >> >>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke wrote: >>> >>> [...] >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 05:11:30 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:41:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> Message-ID: So – as you say it is a much simpler activity, what are the major requirements to run a registry, and what would YOU quote if you were to buy .org and operate it on an at cost basis? From: on behalf of parminder Reply to: parminder Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 3:33 PM To: Subject: Re: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF To further build the case why IGC should take a clear stand: We must understand that unique names and addresses on the Internet are basically a common or public good... Its value is not created by anyone to be able to profit from it, it belongs to all, the logic of which is self evident. For this reason, core gTLDs, esp as carrying denominations that are essential to definition of some social entities, like .org, or .edu, .health, etc, should also be common or public goods. These should ideally be managed as non -profit -- on no-profit no-loss basis. But, in these neo-liberal times when even non profits are advised to work on market principles, even if for efficiency sake we are to take the services of a for-profit to run this commons/ public service it should be so arranged that the profits, or service fees, are quite modest. But the talk of 1 billion or 2 billion dollars for running .org, which today is much simpler activity than it used to be -- basically keeping a directory, allocating non-duplicating names, and maintaining a server that periodically confirms to ISPs the addresses under .org -- is simply ridiculous!!! A billion dollar is a very big money, esp for developing countries... The very few start ups that may cross that amount in evaluation immediately become national stars. People, or even, orgs making money as rents from our commons assets is basically a tax upon us.... So it does not matter if it is $5 or $10 more.... The question is why should I take any tax increase at all, when that money goes to some US based insiders, enjoying access to a perpetual global tax. Why should it be not on no loss no profit basis, or at the most a modest service fees for the activity operator. And when the tax collection system is to migrate from a non profit, claiming to be the legitimate global representative of the technical community, to a newly, and somewhat shady-ily, formed US business, by ex ICANN insiders, there is obviously reason to be concerned and oppose this deal. These are the key questions to be asked and discussed, especially in the civil society dedicated to IG issues, which discussion one hopes will be a little different from the discussions taking place among business and technical groups. And it is primarily IGC's responsibility to do it. parminder On 02/12/19 2:25 PM, parminder wrote: On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: Hi Mwenda, My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what they did. Take expert advice Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this offer came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert advice, The advice was Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly available... What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert advice exists. 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This is especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be a global body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations among US insiders? 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your logic. ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule exists as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a public or community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule pre-established for it bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling business. But this does not mean that it can avoid observing the normal good practice, especially as involving a public or community asset, which most people take PIR to be, and is also indicated in its name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but its secret sale of .org is absolutely against the spirit of community trusteeship that it is supposed to embody. It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek accountability from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society organisations like Girl Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it will be greatly amiss if we do not take any stand in this matter. parminder Joly On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the value of .org way beyond the $2b mark On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: Folks I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." Reasonable people might decide that $1B+ for an organization committed to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've discussed. I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother with this list or the ISOC board. It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our members are not local. My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than that. https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or even delays. If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public discussion. I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," writes, "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes a highly chaotic program. >From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in charge, presumably the ITU. --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 08:25:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:25:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. []s fraternos --c.a. On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a écrit : >> >> Sheetal: >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > 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 /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. > >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 20 09:01:37 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:01:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear all, The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is > *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a > écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in > line below: > > > > 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 /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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer > 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. > >> > >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a > 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas > other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial > objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you > believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they > don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best > for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, > and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It > 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that > 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the > 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s > 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Fri Dec 20 09:09:31 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:09:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sheetal So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct assumption than please list my name Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein > On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear all, > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > > Best > Sheetal > >> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > >> > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a écrit : >> >> >> >> Sheetal: >> >> >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: >> > >> > 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 /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. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> To unsubscribe: >> >> List help: >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] >> [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] >> >> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br >> ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br >> >> > > > -- > > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Fri Dec 20 09:58:47 2019 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:58:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Sheetal – Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual that does not support this letter. With kind regards, Jane From: on behalf of Judith Hellerstein Reply-To: Judith Hellerstein Date: Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM To: Sheetal Kumar Cc: IGCaucus Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Hi Sheetal So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct assumption than please list my name Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. []s fraternos --c.a. On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : >> >> Sheetal: >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > 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 >/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. > >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Dec 20 10:15:59 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:15:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Please list my name as someone who does not support this letter. Thanks. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jane Coffin wrote: > Hi Sheetal – > > > > Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual that > does not support this letter. > > With kind regards, > > Jane > > > > *From: * on behalf of Judith > Hellerstein > *Reply-To: *Judith Hellerstein > *Date: *Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM > *To: *Sheetal Kumar > *Cc: *IGCaucus > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > > > > Hi Sheetal > > So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the > igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct > assumption than please list my name > > > > Best > > Judith > > Sent from my iPhone > > Judith at jhellerstein.com > > Skype ID:Judithhellerstein > > > On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I > also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to > sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now > and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why > this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or > a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going > forward. > > > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, > and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of > all members somewhere else on the website. > > > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > > > > Best > > Sheetal > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is > *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a > écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in > line below: > > > > 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 /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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer > 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. > >> > >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a > 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas > other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial > objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you > believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they > don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best > for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, > and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It > 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that > 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the > 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who > promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent > with those values when making major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s > 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > -- > > > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F > E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 20 10:40:34 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:40:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Message of condolence on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah Message-ID: Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of our network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth running of the network, and was always willing to help. In particular, he played an integral role in the recent revival of the network with his significant support and commitment to the technical team. His efforts in Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet governance community, were also appreciated by many. Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had the opportunity to work with him. He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May his soul rest in peace. Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* **Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ * -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Dec 20 10:41:08 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:41:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Funeral Notice In-Reply-To: References: <903AEDE3-F256-4EF3-93B7-8514C6F4CECB@bytesforall.pk> <4ae279df-ed21-763e-810b-cc69bb669b84@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you, I added in a sentence and have sent the message. I cc'd in the list. Thanks again for your support, Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:00, Judith Hellerstein wrote: > Hi Sylvain > Yes that is what I was thinking as well. Can we add a sentence about his > must recent work on the tech team > > Best > Judith > > Sent from my iPhone > Judith at jhellerstein.com > Skype ID:Judithhellerstein > > > On Dec 20, 2019, at 2:37 AM, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 6:59 PM, Sheetal Kumar a > écrit : > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Please find below a suggested email/letter to send to Imran's family. > Please feel free to suggest additions or amendments. > > > > Thanks dear Sheetal, > > ...i think we should insert some words about his leading engagement in > > the tech team. Then, i propose the followings : > > > > “We were seeing Sheetal as a key resource for IGC, particularly > > because he was efficiently leading our technical team since july 2019 > > [1][2], until his lastest email [3] sent to our mailing list on > > thursday 12th, december 2019, 23:12:46, UTC.” > > __ > > [1]: > > [2]: > > [3]: > > > > Shalom, > > --sb. > > > >> Best > >> Sheetal > >> > >> Dear family and loved ones of Imran Ahmed Shah, > >> > >> We are writing to express our deepest condolences on the passing of > Imran Ahmed Shah. Imran was a very respected and well-loved member of our > network, the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), a global network of civil > society organisations whose mission to provide a forum for discussion, > advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in > Internet governance processes. He worked tirelessly to support the smooth > running of the network, and was always willing to help. His efforts in > Pakistan, to grow and nurture the internet governance community, were also > appreciated by many. > >> > >> Although many of us did not have the fortune to meet Imran in person, > we consider ourselves very fortunate to have known Imran and to have had > the opportunity to work with him. > >> > >> He will be missed by us, and we wish you strength during this time. May > his soul rest in peace. > >> > >> Members of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > >> > >> Please find more information about the IGC here: https://igcaucus.org/ > >> > >>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:00, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > >>> > >>> [...] > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Sheetal Kumar > >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 20 10:59:17 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:59:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8MhNez0nTrFD6uXFLgy69q2oiljxwHiXLumsxVFkioxZJVR1NvcKs3C-geYwgUPot_z2ZmbHf26Uyp1Hlsx-LtZOd6CRQJYsg2HRocHAhmE=@ferdeline.com> Hi Sylvain, Thanks ever so much for your comments. Please see in-line below. Best wishes, Ayden P.S. On an aside, I am about to be on vacation, so I will (try to) be offline from tomorrow through 2 January. I suspect others may be disconnecting then too. So it may make more sense to pick up this letter again in January and assess/re-assess the state of play whether this letter is still timely and relevant. Thanks! ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, December 20, 2019 1:33 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Please see my.comments below (inline)... > > 2019-12-19 14:30 UTC+01:00, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com: > > > Hi all, > > Thanks for all of the comments and suggested edits on this second statement, > > Dear Ayden > Many thanks for the useful editorial's work. Thank you, it has been my pleasure. > > > this time addressed to the ICANN Board. I've made a few revisions to our > > statement in light of your comments. > > ...again thanks ! > > > There was one change I did not make, > > and I'd like to explain why. I personally felt uncomfortable including a > > link to the 2001 Board resolution that was shared in this thread, as I can't > > be certain that it was not later retracted. The ICANN website does not make > > it easy for me to cross-reference the status of a resolution (though I did > > try), and I think there is a possibility that the resolution in question > > only lasted a few months. > > ...let me try to clarify something : > > •— > • i have double-checked all the links suggested :-) > • where i have proposed a replacement for a link, the > contents and location of the two links were compared first. > • So, you don't have to be afraid, because i did the work. > That should be exactly the way, this Caucus works : > someones are actively working for the community. For > instance : you are doing the editorial work for us. Thanks! > • Please replace all the links i have suggested : My apologies, I missed these. I can update the links accordingly. > Exemples : > Replace this > “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy” > by this > “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives : > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/date.html#start” > Also, below, the link imply they should check all the criteria, > but the only relevant is criterion 7 > “[16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm” > so > “[16] https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7” > •— > > > As it could cause embarrassment if we relied on > > something not in effect, I think it better not to include it. > > ...eh ! i disagree Ayden :-) > > > But if I am wrong, and the resolution is in effect, please let me know. > > ...i have started to explain it above, and i can add that : > It is not our role to verify more, if something published as minutes of > an Org is no longer applicable. If it was the case it would have been > easy to check (i guess). Simply because they adopted the draft as it > was ; then they published in various location (minutes, news, blog,...) > and I prefer the minutes and the source of the document the minutes > have indicated. Same contents, but remember what the Secretary of > InternetSociety.ORG have said : I don't know where this for and by come, > it's just a blog... Thank GOD ! we have the direct source now : the April 2001 > minutes ;-) This is where I tend to disagree. I think it is our job to get the facts right. ICANN might not make it easy, but they can discredit out letter (and by extension, us) if we are not factual. I am pretty certain that these Board resolutions were repealed or retracted or not in force several months later. I can (and will) try to confirm this hunch in early January, but I think it is important we only include information that is accurate. > > [*]: see section D.1 & D.2 > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm > > [**]:https://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02apr01.htm > > > The latest draft of our statement is pasted below my name. > > Thanks again for all your input! > > Please consider my comments above. > > Hope this could help. > Thanks. It does help. Thank you! > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > ================ > > > > To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN > > Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN > > We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation to > > the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos Capital. As > > you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) announced that Ethos > > Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, including the .ORG, .NGO, > > and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] > > Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for their > > email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than just > > domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a network > > which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and individuals, we > > believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs must only be made > > following consultation with impacted registrants and the global > > non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent with RFC 1591, > > which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is a “trustee for the > > delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the community.”[2] > > The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit organizations and > > others of a non-commercial character who did not fit within the definitions > > of the original top-level domains like .COM, .GOV, or .EDU. In 2001, ICANN > > stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a new, purpose-built > > registry would “return the .ORG registry to its original purpose,” and > > enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended function as a registry > > operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] Furthermore, article 5.1.4 > > of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign required that > > Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s designee the sum of US $5 million, to be > > used by ICANN in it [sic] sole discretion to establish an endowment to be > > used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by > > ICANN as successor operator of the .ORG registry.”[4] > > The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is non-governmental > > organizations. Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN > > and PIR states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through > > non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or through > > evidence of NGO status.”[5] > > Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and indirect > > communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial number of > > groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has sparked > > outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s largest and > > most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the sale[6]. We have seen > > two petitions of opposition formed (one with more than 16,000 > > signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society chapters issue > > statements disassociating themselves from Internet Society HQ[8]. The sale > > has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], in The Wall Street > > Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to mention the trade press. > > The proposed sale has been criticised by Internet veterans like Tim > > Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted long-term Internet Society members to > > question their involvement in the Internet Society as well as to question > > the ethics of its leadership and the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We > > are not aware of any respected non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. > > Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG > > Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its rights > > and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN do the > > same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. > > We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for > > performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for > > public tender should ISOC persist in its desire to separate itself from PIR. > > Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust > > Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a > > letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding for > > renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the incumbent > > operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] > > Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of > > the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and > > co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. However, we > > do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to indirectly acquire > > these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. > > This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no track > > record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because they have > > committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG domains.[15] We believe > > a more competitive bidding process would see many organizations bidding for > > .ORG, which would likely lead to lower registration prices for our > > resource-poor communities. As you may remember, an important consideration > > in the criteria for awarding .ORG to ISOC in the first instance was > > affordability.[1615] > > If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of > > assets the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to Ethos Capital, we > > believe that the non-profit and non-governmental organization community that > > relies on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack > > of adequate price controls, lack of content neutrality guarantees, and other > > specific problems that we cannot currently identify due to the lack of > > transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its intentions for PIR. > > Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain name > > registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG domains > > registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal rate[1716]) and > > any migration requires that an organization reprint its materials, business > > cards, and reconfigure its services. The American College of Osteopathic > > Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, estimates it would cost them > > $50,000 to move to another top level domain[1817], which would stretch the > > capacity of our resource-poor communities and hinder our good work. > > Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted partner > > that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture capital > > firm. Thank you for your time and consideration of our letter. We are > > available to answer any clarifying questions. > > About the Internet Governance Caucus > > The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. Please > > see more information on the Internet Governance Caucus here: > > https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/ > > [1] > > https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ > > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 > > [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en > > [4] > > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 > > [5] > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm > > [6] > > https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry > > [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and > > https://savedotorg.org/ > > [8] Netherlands > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), > > Switzerland > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), > > Portugal > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) > > [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html > > [10] > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a > > [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 > > [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy > > [14] See page 10, > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf > > [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital > > states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when it > > comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of up to > > 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as PIR did not > > raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation would see .ORG > > domains double in price every five years. > > [1516] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > [1617] Page 16, > > https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. > > [1718] > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Monday, December 16, 2019 9:22 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > governance at lists.riseup.net wrote: > > > > > I support the message > > > Aaron > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:18 Sylvain Baya, governance at lists.riseup.net > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Please see my comments below (inline)... > > > > Le mer. 11 déc. 2019 7:48 PM, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com a > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > Thank you for all of the messages indicating support for sending a > > > > > statement to the ICANN Board. I have pasted some language below for your > > > > > consideration. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > > > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > Many thanks dear Ayden. > > > > > > > > > To: Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Board, ICANN > > > > > Cc: Göran Marby, President and CEO, ICANN > > > > > We are writing on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus in relation > > > > > to the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) to Ethos > > > > > Capital. As you are aware, last month the Internet Society (ISOC) > > > > > announced that Ethos Capital was acquiring all of the assets of PIR, > > > > > including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.[1] > > > > > Nonprofits everywhere rely on .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names for > > > > > their email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising. These are more than > > > > > just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. As members of a > > > > > network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and > > > > > individuals, we believe that decisions about the future of these TLDs > > > > > must only be made following consultation with impacted registrants and > > > > > the global non-commercial Internet community. This advice is consistent > > > > > with RFC 1591, which states that “a designated manager for a domain” is > > > > > a “trustee for the delegated domain, and ha[s] a duty to serve the > > > > > community.”[2] > > > > > The community that .ORG is intended to serve is non-profit > > > > > organizations. > > > > > > > > ...{i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the Registry which > > > > provides a > > > > service to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think > > > > there is a > > > > need to preferably rephrased as below. I'm also including .COM TLD for > > > > illustration : > > > > “The legitimate community associated to the .ORG TLD is intended to be > > > > constituted > > > > by non-profit organizations ; and any other entity from the Internet > > > > community which > > > > is not fits any other global-scoped TLD like .COM (dedicated to > > > > commercial's or for-profit > > > > entities).” > > > > > > > > > In 2001, ICANN stated that transferring .ORG away from Verisign and to a > > > > > new, purpose-built registry would “return the .ORG registry to its > > > > > original purpose,” and enable .ORG to return “to its originally intended > > > > > function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.”[3] > > > > > Furthermore, article 5.1.4 of the 2001 .ORG Registry Agreement between > > > > > ICANN and Verisign required that Verisign “pay to ICANN or ICANN’s > > > > > designee the sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it [sic] sole > > > > > discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future operating > > > > > costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor operator > > > > > of the .ORG registry.”[4] > > > > > > > > ...this quotation is fundamental; in its hability to repare an initial > > > > error ; though, understandable > > > > because .ORG is a legacy TLD. Thanks to ICANN, particularly the Chair and > > > > members of the > > > > 2001-2002 ICANN Board. They did a great and useful (regulatory) work... > > > > > > > > > The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is > > > > > non-governmental organizations. > > > > > > > > ...{again, i'm not a native english though :'-(} i think it's the > > > > Registry which provides a service > > > > to the community ; then when it comes to the TLD itself, i think there is > > > > a need to preferably > > > > rephrased like this : > > > > “The legitimate community associated to the .NGO and .ONG TLDs is > > > > intended to be > > > > constituted by non-governmental organizations.” > > > > > > > > > Specification 12 of the .NGO Registry Agreement between ICANN and PIR > > > > > states, “All registrants must demonstrate affiliation through > > > > > non-governmental organization(s) (“NGO”) membership organizations or > > > > > through evidence of NGO status.”[5] > > > > > Unfortunately, in proposing to sell PIR and ignoring its direct and > > > > > indirect communities, ISOC has now lost the confidence of a substantial > > > > > number of groups in the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG communities. This sale has > > > > > sparked outrage from the non-profit community, with 27 of the world’s > > > > > largest and most-respected charities sending a letter opposing the > > > > > sale[6]. We have seen two petitions of opposition formed (one with more > > > > > than 16,000 signatures)[7], and have seen three Internet Society > > > > > chapters issue statements disassociating themselves from Internet > > > > > Society HQ[8]. The sale has generated negative press coverage on CNN[9], > > > > > in The Wall Street Journal[10], and in the Financial Times[11], not to > > > > > mention the trade press. The proposed sale has been criticised by > > > > > Internet veterans like Tim Berners-Lee[12], and it has prompted > > > > > long-term Internet Society members to question their involvement in the > > > > > Internet Society as well as to question the ethics of its leadership and > > > > > the organization’s entire purpose[13]. We are not aware of any respected > > > > > non-profit that supports the sale of PIR. > > > > > Accordingly, we ask that ICANN exercise its right in article 7.5 of the > > > > > .ORG Registry Agreement and withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > > > > > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. Likewise, we request that ICANN > > > > > do the same for the .NGO and .ONG agreements. > > > > > We similarly request that ICANN find an appropriate replacement for > > > > > performing the functions of PIR by putting .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG up for > > > > > public tender. > > > > > > > > ...good advice/request ! > > > > The tone is well measured. > > > > Perhaps we should append the following bits of texts to the above : > > > > "...for public tender, if ISOC persists in its will/desire to separate > > > > itself from the PIR, > > > > in order to satisfy to a claimed need for diversifying its financing > > > > model." > > > > > > > > > Such a decision would be consistent with advice issued by the Antitrust > > > > > Division of the United States’ Department of Justice, which stated in a > > > > > letter to your predecessor, “ICANN should require competitive bidding > > > > > for renewals of a gTLD registry agreement, rather than granting the > > > > > incumbent operator a perpetual right to renew without competition.”[14] > > > > > > > > ...good piece ! > > > > > > > > > Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part > > > > > of the tender process, > > > > > > > > ...i firmly oppose this, because it seems to adding an inconsistency with > > > > the fundamental > > > > logic in "For and By" [*] ; fortunately already quoted [3][4] in this > > > > draft. If EC becomes, > > > > suddently, a non-profit (Beneficial Corp ???), it would be great to > > > > recommend it...not before ! > > > > ...i recall that, it's still the last line of defense actually used by > > > > the 'dealer' of the PIR : > > > > [...] it is not our fault if ICANN itself had accepted for-profits bids > > > > during the 2002 .ORG > > > > registry re-assignment process. You might also know, for instance, that > > > > the ISC (Internet > > > > Systems Consortium) was quickly eliminated, with a memorable comment : > > > > ‘too much > > > > non-profit !’ > > > > And yes ! the second bid after the Internet Society was from a for-profit > > > > company. [...] > > > > ...so, instead of your piece above, consider this alternative : > > > > “In the spirit of the ICANN Board's resolutions 01.47 & 01.48 [][**], > > > > we firmly recommend > > > > that only non-profit(non-commercial)'s offers are received during that > > > > tender process.” > > > > “In the same line of recommendation, everyone can observe that the > > > > non-commercial > > > > Internet community seems to be now mature enough to manage the .ORG > > > > registry (via > > > > a commons PIR) itself and without any unecessary intermediary. So, please > > > > act accordingly.” > > > > __ > > > > []: see section D.1 & D.2https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm > > > > [**]: https://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02apr01.htm > > > > > > > > > as would other more experienced operators, and co-operatives of > > > > > non-profits and other public interest groups. > > > > > > > > ...should be adjusted to fit with my suggestions above. > > > > > > > > > However, we do not believe that Ethos Capital should be permitted to > > > > > indirectly acquire these registry agreements by way of purchasing PIR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because Ethos Capital is a newly-established entity with no > > > > > track record in managing a new or legacy top-level domain, and because > > > > > they have committed to annually increasing the prices of .ORG > > > > > domains.[15] > > > > > > > > I prefer that we do not mention EC, as much as possible, into this > > > > letter. It's not about > > > > that particular capitalist organization... It's about a simple principle, > > > > i can formulate as > > > > follow : the revenue earned by the .ORG registry MUST benefit to the > > > > development of > > > > the Internet and to support the non-commercial Internet community. Not > > > > only a single > > > > stakeholder in the Internet community... > > > > > > > > > We believe a more competitive bidding process would see many > > > > > organizations bidding for .ORG, which would likely lead to lower > > > > > registration prices for our resource-poor communities. As you may > > > > > remember, an important consideration in the criteria for awarding .ORG > > > > > to ISOC in the first instance was affordability.[16] > > > > > > > > ...it's worth noting this ! thanks. > > > > > > > > > If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the > > > > > transfer of assets to Ethos Capital, we believe that the non-profit and > > > > > non-governmental organization community that relies on .ORG, .NGO, and > > > > > .ONG domains will suffer great harm from the lack of adequate price > > > > > controls and other specific problems that we cannot currently identify > > > > > due to the lack of transparency demonstrated by Ethos Capital in its > > > > > intentions for PIR. > > > > > Moving to another top-level domain is not a realistic option for domain > > > > > name registrants, as they are locked in to their existing domains (.ORG > > > > > domains registered for longer than three years have an 86.8% renewal > > > > > rate[17]) and any migration requires that an organization reprint its > > > > > materials, business cards, and reconfigure its services. The American > > > > > College of Osteopathic Surgeons, which maintains five .ORG domains, > > > > > estimates it would cost them $50,000 to move to another top level > > > > > domain[18], which would stretch the capacity of our resource-poor > > > > > communities and hinder our good work. > > > > > Please, we ask that these top-level domains be managed by a trusted > > > > > partner that has the confidence of our communities, and not by a venture > > > > > capital firm. > > > > > Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. > > > > > About the Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > [[Description to go here]]] > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ > > > > > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 > > > > > [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en > > > > > > > > see section D.1 & D.2 > > > > https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm > > > > https://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02apr01.htm > > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4 > > > > > > > > ...what a great find ! > > > > > > > > > [5] > > > > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/ngo/ngo-agmt-html-06mar14-en.htm > > > > > [6] > > > > > https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry > > > > > [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and > > > > > https://savedotorg.org/ > > > > > [8] Netherlands > > > > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html), > > > > > Switzerland > > > > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html), > > > > > Portugal > > > > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html) > > > > > [9] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/27/tech/org-domain-sale/index.html > > > > > [10] > > > > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > > > > [11] https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a > > > > > [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824 > > > > > [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives: > > > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy > > > > > > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/author.html#start > > > > > > > > > [14] See page 10, > > > > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf > > > > > [15] On their website (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), Ethos Capital > > > > > states: “Our plan is to live within the spirit of historic practice when > > > > > it comes to pricing, which means, potentially, annual price increases of > > > > > up to 10 percent on average.” Note this was not historic practice, as > > > > > PIR did not raise prices annually. The proposed level of price inflation > > > > > would see .ORG domains double in price every five years. > > > > > [16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm > > > > > > > > https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7 > > > > > > > > > [17] Page 16, > > > > > https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf. > > > > > [18] > > > > > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751 > > > > > > > > Done ! thanks. > > > > Shalom, > > > > --sb. > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:58 PM, Niels ten Oever > > > > > lists at digitaldissidents.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I support that too. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Niels > > > > > > On 12/10/19 4:40 PM, Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 100% in support. > > > > > > > WISDOM DONKOR > > > > > > > President & CEO > > > > > > > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > In addition to writing to the ISOC Board, I would like to suggest that > > > > > > > we issue a second statement, this one addressed to the ICANN Board, > > > > > > > calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG > > > > > > > Registry Agreement and to withhold its approval for PIR to assign its > > > > > > > rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. > > > > > > > Is there support for this proposal? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > Niels ten Oever > > > > > > Researcher and PhD Candidate > > > > > > Datactive Research Group > > > > > > University of Amsterdam > > > > > > PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 > > > > > > 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > > > > List help: https://riseup.net/lists > > -- > > Best Regards ! > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | https://www.cmnog.cm | > https://survey.cmnog.cm > Subscribe to Mailing List : https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/ > > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec > vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > List help: https://riseup.net/lists From james at cyberinvasion.net Fri Dec 20 11:11:50 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:11:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <65261440-52AD-4B15-958A-382093E6E9BC@cyberinvasion.net> Myself also. -James Gannon From: on behalf of Joly MacFie Reply to: "joly at punkcast.com" Date: Friday, 20 December 2019 at 15:16 To: Jane Coffin Cc: Judith Hellerstein , Sheetal Kumar , IGCaucus Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Please list my name as someone who does not support this letter. Thanks. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jane Coffin > wrote: Hi Sheetal – Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual that does not support this letter. With kind regards, Jane From: > on behalf of Judith Hellerstein > Reply-To: Judith Hellerstein > Date: Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM To: Sheetal Kumar > Cc: IGCaucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Hi Sheetal So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct assumption than please list my name Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. []s fraternos --c.a. On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : >> >> Sheetal: >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > 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 >/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. > >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Fri Dec 20 11:56:55 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 20 Dec 2019 11:56:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191220165655.DE1E9118C05B@ary.qy> In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hi Sheetal >So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the >correct assumption than please list my name I'm confused. Is there any criteria for being an IGC member other than subscribing to this mailing list? From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sun Dec 1 13:10:44 2019 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:10:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the value of .org way beyond the $2b mark On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: > Folks > > I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most > skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, > I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. > > When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, > including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." > Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization committed > to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've > discussed. > > I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list are > likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are crooks > in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother > with this list or the ISOC board. > > It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open > internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. > If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no > chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our > members are not local. > > My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive MIMO > is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, per > Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. > > I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on IoT > which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices need > to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than that. > > > https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down > > Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down > > > Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of > reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are > strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would > get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money > that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal > should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or > even delays. > > If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among > the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details > were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public > discussion. > > I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the rift > with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. > > > https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving > IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving > > > "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY board > member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the IGF > would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it was > not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a > bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups > together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional > Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought > "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." > > The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, > talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika > Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," > writes, > "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, > which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not > act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes > a highly chaotic program. > > From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've > reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from > the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The > non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global > south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. > Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in > charge, presumably the ITU. > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 05:11:56 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:11:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <662A3C85-2BC1-4C04-8A38-96D2C4FBB3D2@hserus.net> References: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> <1895797598.1687836.1575278595956@mail.yahoo.com> <662A3C85-2BC1-4C04-8A38-96D2C4FBB3D2@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3vvC1cKH8pHr0OMp_WnOvg5AMC62SLcZ0zS8CW2HzvNfeCCFZ1cb4VtLbVJw0TJDyff4ZmRdSsP-M_Y0NgSYV2yzRIpovEfRVkA161Cd7_8=@ferdeline.com> With respect Suresh, the picture is bigger than just a potential price increase. There are absolutely no protections in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants, so we cannot protect against the many harms we can predict today and the harms we can't even imagine yet. But some of those predictable harms include the potential for censorship / content take downs. If all top level domains are run for profit, the Internet is being run for the interests and benefits of private companies. The DNS appears to me to be consolidating. Various top level domains are being acquired by entities connected to the one venture capitalist. At the moment, a PIR under ISOC's control offers up one piece of the DNS that is not purely under commercial control - and that is what we are about to lose. What is the benefit of this sale to a .ORG registrant? Ethos Capital has committed to spending more dollars on marketing (i.e. opening up .ORG to further registrations and perhaps more commercial uses) and maintaining PIR's current spend of $30,000 a year on "Impact Awards"/small grants (which will not benefit many registrants at all). As a consequence, 10 million registrants will be asked to pay more for their domain names every year, and the DNS will be subject to the risks mentioned above. It's not worth it, to me. And I think ISOC has an obligation to ensure not just the health of it's own bank account, but to ensure the Internet too remains open and free. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 10:53, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The story I read had a goose instead of a hen but not really. If the pricing goes above a certain extent domainers will stay away, but most non profits should be able to afford it. $15 moving to even $25 a year is, for example, less than the cost you can spend on a dinner with your family in India (or a very modest meal stateside) > > As I said, given the relatively few non profits compared to domainer owned domains (or general population owned domains) in .org, the new buyer could just provide free registration to registered nonprofits and still not see any appreciable difference to his numbers. > > From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" > Reply to: > Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 2:53 PM > To: Ayden Férdeline , Bill Woodcock > Cc: governance > Subject: Re: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? > > Should it be compared with > > The story hen of golden eggs... > > On Monday, 2 December 2019, 14:06:47 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > I found it interesting as well. > > I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business. > > So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark. > > -Bill > >> On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >>  >> >> A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: >> >> https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 20 12:19:21 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:49:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *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 > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a écrit : >>> Sheetal: >>> >>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: >> 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 /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. >> >>> >>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >>> >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >>> >>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >>> >>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >>> >>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >>> >>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >>> >>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >>> >>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>> >>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >>> >>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >>> >>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >>> >>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >>> >>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >>> >>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >>> >>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 20 12:22:20 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:52:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Jane Sorry for me to ask, but are you an ISOC staff? parminder On 20/12/19 8:28 PM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi Sheetal – > >   > > Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual > that does not support this letter. > > With kind regards, > > Jane > >   > > *From: * on behalf of Judith > Hellerstein > *Reply-To: *Judith Hellerstein > *Date: *Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM > *To: *Sheetal Kumar > *Cc: *IGCaucus > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > >   > > Hi Sheetal  > > So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list > the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the > correct assumption than please list my name  > >   > > Best > > Judith  > > Sent from my iPhone > > Judith at jhellerstein.com > > Skype ID:Judithhellerstein  > > > On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear all, > >   > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, > and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least > two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the > objections are being raised now and were not raised before. > However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If > it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of > time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going > forward. > >   > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the > website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we > list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. > >   > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > >   > > Best > > Sheetal > >   > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as > there is *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing > List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > > a écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See > comments in line below: > > > > 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 >/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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the > sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a > private entity investment firm would significantly alter the > Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would > the transfer 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. > >> > >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining > non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving > as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which > was a 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies > with purely financial objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? > And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue > running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do > what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud > history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, > added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown > procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider > influence. It 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC > thinking that 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all > 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally > misses the 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public > interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and > transparency, to be coherent with those values when making > major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with > ISOC’s 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em > contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > -- > >   > >   > > *Sheetal Kumar* > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 > 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > >   > >   > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Fri Dec 20 12:28:47 2019 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:28:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <026A0B5F-4BA8-4CC6-9322-6678DE00D6F3@isoc.org> Parminder, I am. I have been on this list for many years. Best regards, Jane From: parminder Date: Friday, December 20, 2019 at 12:22 PM To: "governance at lists.riseup.net" , Jane Coffin Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Jane Sorry for me to ask, but are you an ISOC staff? parminder On 20/12/19 8:28 PM, Jane Coffin wrote: Hi Sheetal – Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual that does not support this letter. With kind regards, Jane From: on behalf of Judith Hellerstein Reply-To: Judith Hellerstein Date: Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM To: Sheetal Kumar Cc: IGCaucus Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Hi Sheetal So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct assumption than please list my name Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith at jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: Dear all, The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. []s fraternos --c.a. On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : >> >> Sheetal: >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > 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 >/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. > >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 20 12:34:17 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:34:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing. *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / www.afrigeocon.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Sorry to send another email on this topic; I probably should have offered > some additional context. *The Register* > offers > this description of the Packet Clearing House and why it is qualified to > comment on .ORG: > > *"Packet Clearing House is largely unknown outside technical circles but > it is a key company within the internet’s infrastructure: it helps host the > domain-name hierarchy's root servers and provides DNS for top-level domains > using machines in nearly 200 locations across the globe. Critically in this > case, it is also a key technical partner for .org and has provided DNS > services to the registry for the past 15 years, even as ownership has > changed hands."* > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:41 PM, Ayden Férdeline < > ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > > In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House warns > that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased operational > spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even would result > in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly more than three > days without service each year." > > "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends > rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., > UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, > IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic > control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of > nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical > real-time functions. *Three days per year of interrupted communications > for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the > stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society > globally.*" > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 20 12:36:40 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191220165655.DE1E9118C05B@ary.qy> References: <20191220165655.DE1E9118C05B@ary.qy> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.1D30F0F9-F555-4830-9DAE-A8430E5DE7F8@mail.outlook.com> Easier to say individual members of the igcaucus such as x, y and z? --srs On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:27 PM +0530, "John Levine" wrote: In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Hi Sheetal >So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the >correct assumption than please list my name I'm confused. Is there any criteria for being an IGC member other than subscribing to this mailing list? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Fri Dec 20 15:01:59 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 20 Dec 2019 15:01:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20191220200159.9F2B0118D5FF@ary.qy> In article <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3 at itforchange.net> you write: >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. For obvious reasons, I disagree with essentially everything in the proposed letter. R's, John From joly at punkcast.com Fri Dec 20 15:17:23 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:17:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is this the same Bill Woodcock that wrote on Nov 23* > > Overall, this is an excellent thing to be happening, since it gets ISOC > out from under the USG, and deconflicts it from gTLD politics. So, very > good for the Internet. I honestly don't think anyone's going to die because > the cost of their domain name went from $10 to $12. ? * https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1198112895327850496 On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:34 PM Wisdom Donkor wrote: > Thanks for sharing. > > *WISDOM DONKOR* > President & CEO > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / > www.afrigeocon.org > Tel: +233 20 812 8851 > Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk > __________________________________________________ > Specialization: > E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet > Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber > Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & > Management, > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > >> Sorry to send another email on this topic; I probably should have offered >> some additional context. *The Register* >> offers >> this description of the Packet Clearing House and why it is qualified to >> comment on .ORG: >> >> *"Packet Clearing House is largely unknown outside technical circles but >> it is a key company within the internet’s infrastructure: it helps host the >> domain-name hierarchy's root servers and provides DNS for top-level domains >> using machines in nearly 200 locations across the globe. Critically in this >> case, it is also a key technical partner for .org and has provided DNS >> services to the registry for the past 15 years, even as ownership has >> changed hands."* >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:41 PM, Ayden Férdeline < >> ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House >> warns that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased >> operational spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even >> would result in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly >> more than three days without service each year." >> >> "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends >> rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., >> UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, >> IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic >> control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of >> nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical >> real-time functions. *Three days per year of interrupted communications >> for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the >> stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society >> globally.*" >> >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Dec 20 16:12:53 2019 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:12:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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, wrote: > > On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is > *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 > > > > > []s fraternos > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a > écrit : > >>> Sheetal: > >>> > >>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in > line below: > >> 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 /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. > >> > >>> > >>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of > .org > >>> > >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. > >>> > >>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer > 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. > >>> > >>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against > commercial exploitation. > >>> > >>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a > 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. > >>> > >>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas > other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial > objectives. > >>> > >>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you > believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they > don’t want to that things will be better? > >>> > >>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best > for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >>> > >>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, > and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >>> > >>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It > 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. > >>> > >>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that > 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. > >>> > >>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all > 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. > >>> > >>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the > 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. > >>> > >>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and > who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be > coherent with those values when making major decisions. > >>> > >>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s > 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. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Dec 20 16:37:54 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:37:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5849709E-FB0D-4B33-AC5D-33E458E4FD2F@pch.net> > On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:17 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Is this the same Bill Woodcock that wrote on Nov 23* > > Overall, this is an excellent thing to be happening, since it gets ISOC out from under the USG, and deconflicts it from gTLD politics. So, very good for the Internet. I honestly don't think anyone's going to die because the cost of their domain name went from $10 to $12. > > ? > > * https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1198112895327850496 > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:34 PM Wisdom Donkor wrote: > Thanks for sharing. > > WISDOM DONKOR > President & CEO > Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation > P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / www.afrigeocon.org > Tel: +233 20 812 8851 > Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk > __________________________________________________ > Specialization: > E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:54 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Sorry to send another email on this topic; I probably should have offered some additional context. The Register offers this description of the Packet Clearing House and why it is qualified to comment on .ORG: > > "Packet Clearing House is largely unknown outside technical circles but it is a key company within the internet’s infrastructure: it helps host the domain-name hierarchy's root servers and provides DNS for top-level domains using machines in nearly 200 locations across the globe. Critically in this case, it is also a key technical partner for .org and has provided DNS services to the registry for the past 15 years, even as ownership has changed hands." > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, December 18, 2019 1:41 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> In this letter to ICANN's General Counsel, the Packet Clearing House warns that under Ethos Capital's management of PIR, "the decreased operational spending necessary for any commercial purchaser to break even would result in an increase from zero down-time to, on average, slightly more than three days without service each year." >> >> "Many of the most important institutions upon which our society depends rely on .ORG domains for the provision of critical public services, e.g., UN.org, WorldBank.org, ICRC.org, GDACS.org, IANA.org, Wikipedia.org, IATA.org, ISID.org, and Mozilla.org. .ORG domains are used for air traffic control, containment of communicable disease, and verification of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among many other critical real-time functions. Three days per year of interrupted communications for millions of not-for-profit organizations would unacceptably damage the stability and functionality of the Internet, and more broadly of society globally." >> >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mitchell-woodcock-to-jeffrey-12dec19-en.pdf >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Dec 20 16:56:37 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:56:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Packet Clearing House warns .ORG websites to suffer downtime under Ethos Capital management In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A01E1AF-C53A-4AA8-A916-D1EC6FE0C1D6@pch.net> > On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:17 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Is this the same Bill Woodcock that wrote on Nov 23* > >> Overall, this is an excellent thing to be happening, since it gets ISOC out from under the USG, and deconflicts it from gTLD politics. So, very good for the Internet. I honestly don't think anyone's going to die because the cost of their domain name went from $10 to $12. Yep. Because I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that they weren’t trying to do an unsustainable deal. I assumed that they’d done a deal in the $400M range, which is what any sensible and well-informed person would come to. That would have had a very beneficial effect for ISOC, which I’d love to see happen, and wouldn’t have harmed anyone else, relative to their current situation. I had also been led to believe, by several ISOC and PIR board members, that non-profit registered domains (which have inelastic demand) constituted less than 1% of the total, and that domain speculators (who have extremely elastic demand) held the majority, perhaps more than 60%, of the registered domains. If that were the case, there would be a huge net-revenue valley between about $15 and about $1500 wholesale annual cost, so no sane purchaser would venture beyond the first peak, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $13-$14, much less cross all the way into full-Martin-Shkreli territory at the other side. It’s also the case that that narrative, that non-profits are a tiny minority and speculators are the majority, was used to minimize the relevance and authenticity of the protest against lifting the price cap: it was derided as speculators astroturfing. But two things happened. First, on December 3, the amount was announced, and the amount was completely unsustainable. There’s no way to make it fly without (1) gutting the registry’s operations, (2) maximizing prices, and (3) selling everybody’s data out the back door. Nobody’s really started talking about that third yet, but I encourage you to go look at the business models, if you can call them that, of the other companies Ethos is buying. Second, on December 17, I manually coded a large random sample of .ORG domains, and found that 30% were non-profits, and only 8% speculators. Which means both that the first protest was likely completely legitimately from non-profits who were concerned about pricing (even if their demand is inelastic, it hurts many of them more than I’d realized), and also that there’s no net-revenue-valley to dissuade price-hikes of the sort Vint was suggesting, to $60 or above. So, yeah, on November 23, I was still mis-assuming that people who had been dealing behind closed doors had been dealing _rationally_ behind closed doors. There’s no impediment to returning to rationality, it just takes people actually applying a little financial acumen rather than acting like yahoos with auction fever. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 05:18:29 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:18:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <3vvC1cKH8pHr0OMp_WnOvg5AMC62SLcZ0zS8CW2HzvNfeCCFZ1cb4VtLbVJw0TJDyff4ZmRdSsP-M_Y0NgSYV2yzRIpovEfRVkA161Cd7_8=@ferdeline.com> References: <5C1CDBDB-91D1-4000-9686-60784A8B43D7@pch.net> <1895797598.1687836.1575278595956@mail.yahoo.com> <662A3C85-2BC1-4C04-8A38-96D2C4FBB3D2@hserus.net> <3vvC1cKH8pHr0OMp_WnOvg5AMC62SLcZ0zS8CW2HzvNfeCCFZ1cb4VtLbVJw0TJDyff4ZmRdSsP-M_Y0NgSYV2yzRIpovEfRVkA161Cd7_8=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.A2301677-E40D-466C-A084-AACF46A1B679@mail.outlook.com> The sale has this odor of insider dealing to it but Bill is correct in what he said, they won’t be able to jack up the price too much without losing customers wholesale - and that too bulk buyers in the domain industry rather than individual nonprofits --srs On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:42 PM +0530, "Ayden Férdeline" wrote: With respect Suresh, the picture is bigger than just a potential price increase. There are absolutely no protections in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants, so we cannot protect against the many harms we can predict today and the harms we can't even imagine yet. But some of those predictable harms include the potential for censorship / content take downs. If all top level domains are run for profit, the Internet is being run for the interests and benefits of private companies. The DNS appears to me to be consolidating. Various top level domains are being acquired by entities connected to the one venture capitalist. At the moment, a PIR under ISOC's control offers up one piece of the DNS that is not purely under commercial control - and that is what we are about to lose. What is the benefit of this sale to a .ORG registrant? Ethos Capital has committed to spending more dollars on marketing (i.e. opening up .ORG to further registrations and perhaps more commercial uses) and maintaining PIR's current spend of $30,000 a year on "Impact Awards"/small grants (which will not benefit many registrants at all). As a consequence, 10 million registrants will be asked to pay more for their domain names every year, and the DNS will be subject to the risks mentioned above. It's not worth it, to me. And I think ISOC has an obligation to ensure not just the health of it's own bank account, but to ensure the Internet too remains open and free. Ayden Férdeline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 10:53, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: The story I read had a goose instead of a hen but not really.  If the pricing goes above a certain extent domainers will stay away, but most non profits should be able to afford it.  $15 moving to even $25 a year is, for example, less than the cost you can spend on a dinner with your family in India (or a very modest meal stateside)   As I said, given the relatively few non profits compared to domainer owned domains (or general population owned domains) in .org, the new buyer could just provide free registration to registered nonprofits and still not see any appreciable difference to his numbers.   From: on behalf of "Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)" Reply to: Date: Monday, 2 December 2019 at 2:53 PM To: Ayden Férdeline , Bill Woodcock Cc: governance Subject: Re: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table?   Should it be compared with  The story hen of golden eggs...    On Monday, 2 December 2019, 14:06:47 GMT+5, Bill Woodcock wrote:     I found it interesting as well.   I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business.    So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark.                       -Bill   On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline wrote:  A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless:   https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/   Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Dec 20 17:12:43 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:12:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: PIR Stewardship: Community Webinar #pirstewardship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A transcript is now available. https://isoc.live/pir/2019-12-19_PIR_Stewardship_Community_Webinar.pdf On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:53 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > > Just about to start. A transcript will be made available, later > ISOC Live posted: "Today, Thursday December 19 2019, at 11:00 EST (16:00 > UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR) and Ethos Capital will convene a > Community Webinar to discuss the planned Stewardship Council and other > proposed programs to serve the .ORG Community. All inter" > > [image: livestream] > Today,* Thursday > December 19 2019*, at *11:00 EST* (16:00 UTC), the *Public Interest > Registr*y (PIR) and *Ethos Capital > * will convene a *Community Webinar > * to discuss the planned > Stewardship Council and other proposed programs to serve the .ORG > Community. All interested parties are invited to *join the webinar > *, which will also be webcast and > archived on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel > *. > > *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/pirstewardship > * > > *ZOOM: https://pir.zoom.us/j/404269014 * > > *MORE INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/ > * > > *TWITTER: #pirstewardship @PIRegistry > @ethos_capital* > > *Permalink*: > https://isoc.live/11608/ > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 20 18:28:47 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 23:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191220200159.9F2B0118D5FF@ary.qy> References: <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <20191220200159.9F2B0118D5FF@ary.qy> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.B879B55B-1CF5-42CB-9DD8-8329899A00BA@mail.outlook.com> The same here --srs On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 1:32 AM +0530, "John Levine" wrote: In article <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3 at itforchange.net> you write: >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. For obvious reasons, I disagree with essentially everything in the proposed letter. R's, John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Dec 20 23:52:50 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 04:52:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Just to be clear, …my criticism of the IGC letter on ORG was made with the understanding that the letter had been sent already. I did not intend for my objections to discredit IGC’s process, nor was it an attempt to reverse it; I just wanted to express my opinion about it. In general, it is good for IGC to be able to come together and develop a statement; in some respects even a highly imperfect letter is better than paralysis and nothing. I was so involved in other statements/activities related to ORG and other things that I simply didn’t have time to fully participate in IGC’s development of the letter. On the other hand, in this case (ORG) it would be better if civil society was more focused on a unified and positive agenda. Looking ahead, IGC should be aware of what NCSG does on ICANN issues and vice-versa. (Certainly Ayden was aware of the letter we developed at NCSG and was fully aware of why his approach to the problem was discarded there.) Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: Sheetal Kumar Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:02 AM To: Carlos Afonso Cc: Sylvain BAYA ; Mueller, Milton L ; Ayden Férdeline ; IGCaucus ; Ian Peter ; parminder ; Imran Ahmed Shah Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Dear all, The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? Best Sheetal On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. []s fraternos --c.a. On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : >> >> Sheetal: >> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > 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 /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. > >> >> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org >> >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. >> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. >> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. >> >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. >> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? >> >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >> >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. >> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. >> >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. >> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. >> >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. >> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 21732 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 22 14:53:22 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 16:53:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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: > 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, wrote: > >> >> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is >> *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 >> >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a >> écrit : >>>>> Sheetal: >>>>> >>>>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in >> line below: >>>> 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 /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. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of >> .org >>>>> >>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >> ISOC. >>>>> >>>>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >> commercial exploitation. >>>>> >>>>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas >> other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial >> objectives. >>>>> >>>>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you >> believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they >> don’t want to that things will be better? >>>>> >>>>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best >> for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>>>> >>>>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, >> and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >>>>> >>>>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >> who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >> coherent with those values when making major decisions. >>>>> >>>>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From lists at digitaldissidents.org Sun Dec 22 17:14:00 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:14:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6ef85a3d-6f7d-9e76-6027-017fcac9d8fe@digitaldissidents.org> Hi all, I just want to say that I think the coordinators have exactly done what is their task according to the IGC charter: [quote] The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below. [/quote] Am not sure why people are now adamant to have their names listed as objectors, which seems to go against the (rough) consensus model and rather mimics voting processes. Best, Niels On 12/20/19 3:01 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > > > 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 /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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. > >> > >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > > -- > > ** > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 22 18:14:53 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 23:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <6ef85a3d-6f7d-9e76-6027-017fcac9d8fe@digitaldissidents.org> References: <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <6ef85a3d-6f7d-9e76-6027-017fcac9d8fe@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.3C710137-8AB6-49D3-818F-A352CFF663EA@mail.outlook.com> Rough consensus favours the most vocal majority out of the individuals that speak up, all of whom constitute a small fraction of the caucus membership For normal decisions this is fine. For anything as significant as this, there must be a poll and a provision to allow individuals to opt out.  Or a signature of the letter by specifically named individuals in their individual capacities as members of the igcaucus --srs On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 3:44 AM +0530, "Niels ten Oever" wrote: Hi all, I just want to say that I think the coordinators have exactly done what is their task according to the IGC charter: [quote] The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below. [/quote] Am not sure why people are now adamant to have their names listed as objectors, which seems to go against the (rough) consensus model and rather mimics voting processes. Best, Niels On 12/20/19 3:01 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > > > 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 /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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. > >> > >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > > -- > > ** > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 22 23:32:10 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:02:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos Thanks for your response. Not trying to corner you or anyone but still trying to understand your position (and its basis), and also further arguing my point through ananalogy: 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? 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? 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. thanks and best regards parminder On 23/12/19 1:23 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > 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: >> 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, wrote: >> >>> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is >>> *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 >>> >>>> []s fraternos >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a >>> écrit : >>>>>> Sheetal: >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in >>> line below: >>>>> 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 /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. >>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of >>> .org >>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >>> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>> ISOC. >>>>>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer >>> 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. >>>>>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >>> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >>> commercial exploitation. >>>>>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a >>> 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. >>>>>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas >>> other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial >>> objectives. >>>>>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you >>> believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they >>> don’t want to that things will be better? >>>>>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best >>> for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>>>>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, >>> and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >>>>>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It >>> 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. >>>>>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that >>> 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. >>>>>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all >>> 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. >>>>>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the >>> 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. >>>>>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >>> who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >>> coherent with those values when making major decisions. >>>>>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s >>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 22 23:46:19 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:16:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <4000bf4e-4d85-4453-9e2d-24b13c5a2340@itforchange.net> <944027867.5594354.1575992459629@mail.yahoo.com> <3256ddfa-86d3-272d-2a2f-48d6b473cb62@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Milton taking from your comment "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." May I humbly ask, if indeed there is no difference between .org and any other gtld, why do you and NCUC propose putting conditions on how any owner of .org may run its business in future? why not just let market logic determine such things - as you seem to normally believe? I am of course talking about your and NCUC's position -- which you rather un-humbly claim to be superior to the ill-informed position taken by the IGC --  whereby it seeks to allow the sale if certain conditions are met by the prospective buyer of .org. It may also be asked, should there these conditions be put on all gtlds? If not, then is your/NCUC's position only for the sake of taking a position (given that almost everyone has taken a position on this issue) -- as you have accused IGC and others of outrage for the sake of outrage! BTW, just for clarification, a much less important question, are you proposing these conditions be put on .org buyer by ICANN or these just be a set of undertakings by the new buyer? thanks and regards parminder   On 20/12/19 12:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Sheetal: > > This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in > line below: > >   > > *Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org* > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and > weaken ISOC. > > MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer > 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. > > PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial > top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance > against commercial exploitation. > > MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a > 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. > > PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas > other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. > > MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you > believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if > they don’t want to that things will be better? > > PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best > for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > > MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, > and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > > However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It > 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. > > MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that > 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. > > We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all > 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. > > MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the > 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. > > We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and > who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be > coherent with those values when making major decisions. > > MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s > 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. > >   > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Dec 23 04:19:58 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:19:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at the moment. If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I am afraid (23 December) Thanks a lot. Anriette Esterhuysen IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 05:14:35 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Khouzeifi Issakha (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:14:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I am KHOUZEIFI Issakha Doud-bane, the President of MAG YOUTH IGF CHAD and focal point of Youth IGF Africa. Welcome to ask questions. Best regards Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen a écrit : > Dear all > > I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few > questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at > the moment. > > If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I > am afraid (23 December) > > Thanks a lot. > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 05:30:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:30:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Le samedi 30 novembre 2019, Dave Burstein a écrit : > Folks > > I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most > skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, > I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. > > When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, > including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." > Dear Dave, Trust me : i would have not vote for this 'big deal' and i would have not probably be alone ; because one of this actual BoT have refrained to participate to the whole discussion. I have not seen anywhere a mention of CoI (Conflict of Interest) to justify... ...a simplest word to describe the situation around this 'big deal' is : 'apostasy' Look, some of us have seen a 'Trust Anchor' break, day after day, and even if you are now convinced (that is your rights) by this number above, do you think that others SHOULD/MUST reach to the same conclusion while considering the same *now* reaveled new information ? ...if it was me, i would have wanted to have that information earlier, to not have to waste my energy in strongly opposition to a 'fantastic' (FotI) Future of the Internet (Society ?). I may be wrong, though :-/ > Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization committed > to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've > discussed. > ...i observe that : 'reasonable' seems to be a questionable word finally ! Questions : •— • Is it about $B ? • Is it about money ? • MUST i be convinced by the volume of the money proposed to me ? • MUST i consider the rights of the existing non-commercial Internet community or *only* those of the same type of community but not yet connected to the Internet ? • MUST i consider the rights of the poorest (*i'm proudly one of them * *and i have a .ORG domain down and want to renew*) Internet users or *only* those of the *Future* poorest Internet users ? •— I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list are > likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. > ...probably, but not sure that it's for the same side i expect to hear that conclusion. > There are crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very > few of them bother with this list or the ISOC board. > ...why not everywhere, including this list and the mentioned Board ? In what this IGC mailinglist or that Board are differents ? Thanks for your email. Happy & Blessed week ! Shalom, --sb. [...] > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 05:56:56 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Gustavo Paiva (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:56:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I have forwarded this message to a number of people involved at the Yough IGFs. Gustavo. On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 07:15, Khouzeifi Issakha wrote: > Hi, > > I am KHOUZEIFI Issakha Doud-bane, the President of MAG YOUTH IGF CHAD and > focal point of Youth IGF Africa. > > Welcome to ask questions. > > Best regards > > Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen a > écrit : > >> Dear all >> >> I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few >> questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at >> the moment. >> >> If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I >> am afraid (23 December) >> >> Thanks a lot. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 08:30:17 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:30:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-) Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and I am not against this)? Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation? Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit operation in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to .ORG which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to be so under ISOC? If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, have you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole? And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the Internet, and as a common good for Brazilians, and acts likewise. Completely different of .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations as a common good but objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since the beginning of its commercial operation. You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend... fraternal regards --c.a. On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Thanks for your response. > > Not trying to corner you or anyone but still trying to understand your > position (and its basis), and also further arguing my point through > ananalogy: > > 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? > > 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? > > 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. > > thanks and best regards > > parminder > > > On 23/12/19 1:23 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> 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: >>> 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, wrote: >>> >>>> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>>> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is >>>> *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 >>>> >>>>> []s fraternos >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a >>>> écrit : >>>>>>> Sheetal: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in >>>> line below: >>>>>> 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 /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. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of >>>> .org >>>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >>>> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>>> ISOC. >>>>>>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer >>>> 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. >>>>>>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >>>> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >>>> commercial exploitation. >>>>>>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a >>>> 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. >>>>>>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas >>>> other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial >>>> objectives. >>>>>>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you >>>> believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they >>>> don’t want to that things will be better? >>>>>>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best >>>> for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>>>>>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, >>>> and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >>>>>>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It >>>> 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. >>>>>>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that >>>> 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. >>>>>>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all >>>> 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. >>>>>>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the >>>> 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. >>>>>>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >>>> who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >>>> coherent with those values when making major decisions. >>>>>>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s >>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 08:54:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ver=C3=B3nica?= Arroyo (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:54:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, I am Verónica, vice chair from the Youth Observatory, Youth Special Group of Interest of ISOC. We organize/co-organize some regional youth IGFs (YouthLACIGF, West Africa Youth IGF, Africa Youth IGF) and our members organize local IGFs (in africa and latin america mainly). Happy to help you if you have questions about the youth igfs. Thank you Gustavo for sharing this email. Best, El lun., 23 de diciembre de 2019 05:57, Gustavo Paiva < governance at lists.riseup.net> escribió: > I have forwarded this message to a number of people involved at the Yough > IGFs. > > Gustavo. > > On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 07:15, Khouzeifi Issakha < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am KHOUZEIFI Issakha Doud-bane, the President of MAG YOUTH IGF CHAD and >> focal point of Youth IGF Africa. >> >> Welcome to ask questions. >> >> Best regards >> >> Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen a >> écrit : >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few >>> questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at >>> the moment. >>> >>> If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I >>> am afraid (23 December) >>> >>> Thanks a lot. >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 23 10:32:34 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 21:02:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On 23/12/19 7:00 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-) Thanks Carlos, I take it as a complement :) .. Discursive democracy is an important, perhaps even a central, value and practice for civil society. Pl see some responses below. > > Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and I am not against this)? Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation? ISOC runs or supervises a registry (matters little whether directly or through a shell formation the PIR) and it does a lot of other work about and around the Internet. So does CGI.Br all these things... No two entities are exactly the same -- but the parallels here are strong and clear. But if you insist then you can just compare PIR, a non-profit that runs a registry, with CGI-Br, and my argument still stands... I can change the argument to: Why is it ok to dissolve PIR, as an non profit running a registry that many take to be a global commons because of its name and the associations it carries (which is a real and verifiable fact), and make it a for profit, when you dont agree the same could or should be done for CGI.br running .br, a national commons, as its principal mission? > > Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit operation in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to .ORG which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to be so under ISOC? .Br is only restricted to Brazilian, why cant a Brazilian corporation run it maintaining the same conditions? Different commons have different logics, associations and practices. You cant say your conceptions of your commons are ok, but that of others are not.....  NGOs globally are aghast, including entirely non-internet-y one's like Girls Scouts, and UN Rapporteurs are calling .org to be special, how can you reject all such global sentiment of global commons nature of .org, and still stick to .br being strictly a national commons, and not even agree to a Brazilian business to run it, with a contracted condition that only a Brazilian entity can be allocated .br... I am sure Milton wiil be glad for such an arrangement, and I bring it up becuase it was Milton's position that you supported. > > If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, have you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole? Carlos, I do not have to navigate its website.. I know first hand about CGI.br's diverse activities, I mention them in my email below, and have held workshops with different branches of CGI doing work entirely unrelated to .br management. > > And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the Internet, and as a common good for Brazilians, would love to hear what Milton thinks of this formulation :)  (I dont see how allocation of .br is non-excludable) > and acts likewise. Completely different of .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations as a common good but objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since the beginning of its commercial operation. You yourselves agree that many organisations see .org as a common good, and the current very widespread outrage proves it even more -- This fact had a strong role in allocation of .org to ISOC, and till just a few months back PIR has being carrying its special commons/ non profit status on its sleeves (i can share quotes if you want).... Your conclusion that 'but objectively (.org) does not operate as such' is both a little stretched, and in any case no reason why we make 'org operate even less as a global commons than it already does, by its outright sale to a (fishy smelling) business.... My apologies, but that appears to be a strange logic... best regards, and happy Christmas celebrations! parminder > > You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend... > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote: >> Dear Carlos >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> Not trying to corner you or anyone but still trying to understand your >> position (and its basis), and also further arguing my point through >> ananalogy: >> >> 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? >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> thanks and best regards >> >> parminder >> >> >> On 23/12/19 1:23 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> 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: >>>> 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, wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>>>>> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is >>>>> *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 >>>>> >>>>>> []s fraternos >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L a >>>>> écrit : >>>>>>>> Sheetal: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in >>>>> line below: >>>>>>> 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 /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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of >>>>> .org >>>>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >>>>> investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>>>> ISOC. >>>>>>>> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial >>>>> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against >>>>> commercial exploitation. >>>>>>>> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas >>>>> other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial >>>>> objectives. >>>>>>>> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you >>>>> believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they >>>>> don’t want to that things will be better? >>>>>>>> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best >>>>> for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. >>>>>>>> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, >>>>> and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. >>>>>>>> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and >>>>> who promotes the values of openness, trust, and transparency, to be >>>>> coherent with those values when making major decisions. >>>>>>>> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s >>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 11:04:17 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mahamat Silim (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 17:04:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, I am Mahamat Silim Moustapha, youth IGF Africa Coordinator. I am open to answer to your questions. Best regards Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 14:54, Verónica Arroyo a écrit : > Hi Anriette, > > I am Verónica, vice chair from the Youth Observatory, Youth Special Group > of Interest of ISOC. We organize/co-organize some regional youth IGFs > (YouthLACIGF, West Africa Youth IGF, Africa Youth IGF) and our members > organize local IGFs (in africa and latin america mainly). Happy to help you > if you have questions about the youth igfs. > > Thank you Gustavo for sharing this email. > > Best, > > El lun., 23 de diciembre de 2019 05:57, Gustavo Paiva < > governance at lists.riseup.net> escribió: > >> I have forwarded this message to a number of people involved at the Yough >> IGFs. >> >> Gustavo. >> >> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 07:15, Khouzeifi Issakha < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am KHOUZEIFI Issakha Doud-bane, the President of MAG YOUTH IGF CHAD >>> and focal point of Youth IGF Africa. >>> >>> Welcome to ask questions. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few >>>> questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at >>>> the moment. >>>> >>>> If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I >>>> am afraid (23 December) >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot. >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> >>>> IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 12:06:40 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 18:06:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 2:31 PM, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-) > > Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is > orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an > opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and > I am not against this)? Dear Carlos, “*[...] they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization [...]*” Are you sure ? ...please provide an evidence :-/ Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the > Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation? > > Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit operation > in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to .ORG > which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to be so > under ISOC? > ...please, let me know when you will try to sell the .BR registry to a for-profit company. If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, have > you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to > "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and > projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole? > ...good ! like ? And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the Internet, and > as a common good for Brazilians, and acts likewise. Completely different of > .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations as a common good but > objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since the beginning of its > commercial operation. > Have you read this [1] ? ...don't forget that .ORG is/was a legacy TLD. I don't know if you remember that some of the ccTLDs were managed by foreign businessmen without the knowledge of the national Internet Communities.... ...if i got you well, then those ccTLDs are also differents to the brTLD, and those should be freely sold as .ORG to back to their first for-profit managers. ...i may be wrong though, then please correct me :-/ You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend... > ...brother, it seems as you are the one :-/ But, again, i may be wrong ! Thanks. Happy & Blessed monday ! Shalom, --sb. > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote: > > [...] > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 12:27:35 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sonigitu Ekpe (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 18:27:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Youth IGF In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi All! Compliments of the Season. I thought you were all requested to contact her offlist? So why the onlist response? Please always keep to details. Many thanks. Sonigitu On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 5:06 PM Mahamat Silim wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > I am Mahamat Silim Moustapha, youth IGF Africa Coordinator. > I am open to answer to your questions. > > Best regards > > > Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 14:54, Verónica Arroyo > a écrit : > >> Hi Anriette, >> >> I am Verónica, vice chair from the Youth Observatory, Youth Special Group >> of Interest of ISOC. We organize/co-organize some regional youth IGFs >> (YouthLACIGF, West Africa Youth IGF, Africa Youth IGF) and our members >> organize local IGFs (in africa and latin america mainly). Happy to help you >> if you have questions about the youth igfs. >> >> Thank you Gustavo for sharing this email. >> >> Best, >> >> El lun., 23 de diciembre de 2019 05:57, Gustavo Paiva < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> escribió: >> >>> I have forwarded this message to a number of people involved at the >>> Yough IGFs. >>> >>> Gustavo. >>> >>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 07:15, Khouzeifi Issakha < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am KHOUZEIFI Issakha Doud-bane, the President of MAG YOUTH IGF CHAD >>>> and focal point of Youth IGF Africa. >>>> >>>> Welcome to ask questions. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 à 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> I need to talk to people involved in the Youth IGF process. Have a few >>>>> questions that I need to ask and I know not many people are around at >>>>> the moment. >>>>> >>>>> If there are any, please can you email me offlist? It has to be today I >>>>> am afraid (23 December) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> >>>>> IGF MAG Chair/APC Senior Advisor Internet Governance >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 12:43:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:43:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2aad6d58-c9a2-0228-f24c-2279b8137c50@cafonso.ca> Sylvain, I will only respond to this phrase of yours, as the rest has already been dealt with in my earlier message: "...please, let me know when you will try to sell the .BR registry to a for-profit company." Interesting that you think I have this kind of power :-) [] fraterno --c.a. On 23/12/2019 14:06, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Hi all, > > Please see my comments below (inline)... > > Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 2:31 PM, Carlos Afonso > a écrit : > > Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-) > > Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and I am not against this)? > > > Dear Carlos, > > “/[...] they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization [...]/” > > Are you sure ?  > ...please provide an evidence :-/ > > Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation? > > Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit operation in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to .ORG which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to be so under ISOC? > > > ...please, let me know when you will try to sell the .BR registry to a for-profit company. > > If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, have you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole? > > > ...good ! like > ? > > And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the Internet, and as a common good for Brazilians, and acts likewise. Completely different of .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations as a common good but objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since the beginning of its commercial operation. > > > Have you read this [1] ? > ...don't forget that .ORG is/was a legacy TLD. > > I don't know if you remember that some of the ccTLDs were managed by foreign businessmen without the knowledge of the national Internet Communities.... > > ...if i got you well, then those ccTLDs are also differents to the brTLD, and those should be freely sold as .ORG to back to their first for-profit managers.  > > ...i may be wrong though, then please correct me :-/ > > You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend... > > > ...brother, it seems as you are the one :-/ > But, again, i may be wrong ! > > Thanks. > > Happy & Blessed monday ! > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote: > > [...] > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > [...] > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 23 19:00:20 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 19:00:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wishing a successful 2020. In-Reply-To: References: <87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150.af84f3da4c.20191223230239.87e315dfdc.195ded58@mail84.sea91.rsgsv.net> Message-ID: Dear friends and colleagues, We wish you a season of joy. The 2019 Network Readiness Index is our contribution - supporting you and your country in the path to a successful future. From the Portulans Institute Team (Left to Right) Soumitra Dutta, Carolina Rossini, and Bruno Lanvin Check out the full report here! w. portulansinstitute.org w. networkreadinessindex.org e. info at portulansinstitute.org t. @PortulansI [image: Twitter] [image: LinkedIn] *Copyright © *Portulans Institute* , All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. *Our mailing address is:* *info at portulansinstitute.org* Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . -- *__Carolina A. Rossini, JD, LLM, MBA* *Skype:* carolina.rossini_2 | Twitter: @carolinarossini https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolinarossini/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Tue Dec 24 10:14:24 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:14:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <25F457B8D0530B29.3C710137-8AB6-49D3-818F-A352CFF663EA@mail.outlook.com> References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <6ef85a3d-6f7d-9e76-6027-017fcac9d8fe@digitaldissidents.org> <25F457B8D0530B29.3C710137-8AB6-49D3-818F-A352CFF663EA@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: There are many ways this could be addressed if people think this is important, but polling/voting is currently not described in the charter whereas (rough) consensus is. Best, Niels On 12/23/19 12:14 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Rough consensus favours the most vocal majority out of the individuals that speak up, all of whom constitute a small fraction of the caucus membership > > For normal decisions this is fine. For anything as significant as this, there must be a poll and a provision to allow individuals to opt out.  Or a signature of the letter by specifically named individuals in their individual capacities as members of the igcaucus > > --srs > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 3:44 AM +0530, "Niels ten Oever" > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just want to say that I think the coordinators have exactly done what is their task according to the IGC charter: > > [quote] > The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible. > > In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below. > [/quote] > > Am not sure why people are now adamant to have their names listed as objectors, which seems to go against the (rough) consensus model and rather mimics voting processes. > > Best, > > Niels > > > On 12/20/19 3:01 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going forward. > > > > However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website, and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of all members somewhere else on the website. > > > > Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone? > > > > Best > > Sheetal > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso > wrote: > > Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is *consensus* in the caucus. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L > a écrit : > >> > >> Sheetal: > >> > >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in line below: > > > > 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 /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. > > > >> > >> > >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org > >> > >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm would significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. > >> > >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer 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. > >> > >> > PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. > >> > >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a 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. > >> > >> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. > >> > >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they don’t want to that things will be better? > >> > >> PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for > domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. > >> > >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS, and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures. > >> > >> However, PIR also gave ISOC greater legitimacy and wider influence. It 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. > >> > >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that 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. > >> > >> We ask that ISOC commit to publishing on its website all 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. > >> > >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the 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. > >> > >> We expect an organization that operates in the public interest, and who promotes the values of openness, > trust, and transparency, to be coherent with those values when making major decisions. > >> > >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > > -- > > ** > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 2 05:42:47 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 05:42:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder > What are your sources, in case you can tell us that. Sure. Last Friday's Q&A. I made a transcript. https://isoc.live/pir/PIR_Community_Forum.pdf > As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert advice exists. As trustees their fiduciary duty was to get the best advice available and act appropriately in the best interest of the organization and sustaining its mission. > > 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, > You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? No I cannot prove that. I don't think there's anything even now to stop you gathering such a consortium and making an offer. There may be penalties if ISOC pulled out of the deal., That's something that has not been disclosed. > > 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. > Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your logic. Those are not ongoing concerns. Not the same thing at all. Again this was the expert advice from people experienced in such transactions. It behooves ISOC to get all of its eggs out of one basket in the Interest of the entire Internet Community, not just .org registrants, for whom the sky may not fall. joly On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM parminder wrote: > > On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Hi Mwenda, > > My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what they > did. Take expert advice > > Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but > nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this offer > came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert advice, The > advice was > > Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly available... > What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. > > As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one > wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert > advice exists. > > 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, > > You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a > consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This is > especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be a global > body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations among US > insiders? > > 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had > said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was > thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. > > Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make > secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the > morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your > logic. > > ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule exists > as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a public or > community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule pre-established for it > bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling business. But this does not mean > that it can avoid observing the normal good practice, especially as > involving a public or community asset, which most people take PIR to be, > and is also indicated in its name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but > its secret sale of .org is absolutely against the spirit of community > trusteeship that it is supposed to embody. > > It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek accountability > from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society organisations like Girl > Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it will be greatly amiss if we > do not take any stand in this matter. > > parminder > > > > Joly > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva > wrote: > >> If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the >> best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b >> is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will >> be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the >> value of .org way beyond the $2b mark >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: >> >>> Folks >>> >>> I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most >>> skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, >>> I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. >>> >>> When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, >>> including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." >>> Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization >>> committed to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms >>> we've discussed. >>> >>> I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list >>> are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are >>> crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them >>> bother with this list or the ISOC board. >>> >>> It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open >>> internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. >>> If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no >>> chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our >>> members are not local. >>> >>> My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive >>> MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, >>> per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. >>> >>> I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on >>> IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices >>> need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than >>> that. >>> >>> >>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down >>> >>> Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down >>> >>> >>> Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews >>> of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are >>> strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would >>> get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money >>> that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal >>> should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or >>> even delays. >>> >>> If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among >>> the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details >>> were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public >>> discussion. >>> >>> I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the >>> rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. >>> >>> >>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving >>> IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving >>> >>> >>> "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY >>> board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the >>> IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it >>> was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a >>> bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups >>> together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional >>> Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought >>> "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." >>> >>> The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, >>> talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika >>> Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," >>> writes, >>> "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, >>> which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not >>> act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes >>> a highly chaotic program. >>> >>> From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've >>> reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from >>> the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The >>> non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global >>> south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. >>> Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in >>> charge, presumably the ITU. >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Dec 24 14:08:22 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 19:08:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wyden, Blumenthal, Warren and Eshoo Question Sale of .ORG Domains to Private Equity Firm Message-ID: Four US senators have sent a letter to the Internet Society yesterday raising a number of questions regarding the sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital. Their letter can be founded on this webpage: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Tue Dec 24 14:42:38 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:42:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wyden, Blumenthal, Warren and Eshoo Question Sale of .ORG Domains to Private Equity Firm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bravo! The full letter is excellent and captures what is clear disquiet in the community, at the UN and now within the US Senate (including Senator Warren). It's worth a read: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/122319%20RW%20Letter%20to%20PIR%20ISOC%20Ethos.pdf I maintain that the sale should not go ahead. None of the arguments on this list have convinced me otherwise, nor dare I say the 536 organizations and 18,999 signatories who are opposed to the sale and have called for it not to proceed. Thanks for the robust debate all - and happy holidays! Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Four US senators have sent a letter to the Internet Society yesterday > raising a number of questions regarding the sale of the Public Interest > Registry to Ethos Capital. Their letter can be founded on this webpage: > https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 26 06:25:50 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 12:25:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <2aad6d58-c9a2-0228-f24c-2279b8137c50@cafonso.ca> References: <15cdb25e-d290-8132-f518-7b1725695ac0@cafonso.ca> <7806dd5e-8813-7d3d-fa3b-c7e564163de3@itforchange.net> <4463c544-2eba-fdf8-50f9-f20fd559f16b@itforchange.net> <9fa541a3-cb9e-ee10-8812-9807c5252316@cafonso.ca> <2aad6d58-c9a2-0228-f24c-2279b8137c50@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 6:43 PM, Carlos Afonso a écrit : > Sylvain, I will only respond to this phrase of yours, as the rest has > already been dealt with in my earlier message: > Dear Carlos, Thanks, but normally, if it's the one [*] i was responding to, then i can not agree :-/ __ [*]: ...if i'm wrong, please elaborate or provide the right link or text. "...please, let me know when you will try to sell the .BR registry to a > for-profit company." > > Interesting that you think I have this kind of power :-) > :-D ...maybe not you. Then, please let me know when it would occur ;-) While i'm awaiting for your answers, please let me add this missing reference in my previous email [**] : [1]: see section D.1 & D.2 < https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm> __ [**]: Shalom, --sb. [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > On 23/12/2019 14:06, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Please see my comments below (inline)... > > > > Le lun. 23 déc. 2019 2:31 PM, Carlos Afonso > a écrit : > > > > Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-) > > > > Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is > orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an > opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and > I am not against this)? > > > > > > Dear Carlos, > > > > “/[...] they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose > of generating income for the organization [...]/” > > > > Are you sure ? > > ...please provide an evidence :-/ > > > > Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the > Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation? > > > > Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit > operation in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to > .ORG which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to > be so under ISOC? > > > > > > ...please, let me know when you will try to sell the .BR registry to a > for-profit company. > > > > If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, > have you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to > "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and > projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole? > > > > > > ...good ! like > ? > > > > And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the > Internet, and as a common good for Brazilians, and acts likewise. > Completely different of .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations > as a common good but objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since > the beginning of its commercial operation. > > > > > > Have you read this [1] ? > > ...don't forget that .ORG is/was a legacy TLD. > > > > I don't know if you remember that some of the ccTLDs were managed by > foreign businessmen without the knowledge of the national Internet > Communities.... > > > > ...if i got you well, then those ccTLDs are also differents to the > brTLD, and those should be freely sold as .ORG to back to their first > for-profit managers. > > > > ...i may be wrong though, then please correct me :-/ > > > > You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend... > > > > > > ...brother, it seems as you are the one :-/ > > But, again, i may be wrong ! > > > > Thanks. > > > > Happy & Blessed monday ! > > > > Shalom, > > --sb. > > > > > > fraternal regards > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote: > > > [...] > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 30 07:08:07 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 07:08:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN to form cybercrime committee in move opposed by US, EU In-Reply-To: <00a7f2c2-42e1-256f-22d9-b468949ed57b@gih.com> References: <00a7f2c2-42e1-256f-22d9-b468949ed57b@gih.com> Message-ID: FYI all. Happy New Year! (The irony isn't lost on me 🙃) Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 3:27 AM Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] UN to form cybercrime committee in move opposed by US, EU To: ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org What a thing to vote on during the holiday break! *The United Nations General Assembly on Friday approved a resolution that aims to create a new international convention on cybercrime.* *The Russian-sponsored resolution was approved by a 79-60 vote with 33 abstentions, **according to The Associated Press **.* *The resolution was approved over objections from both the European Union and the United States, as many fear language in the resolution will allow for crackdowns on expression.* https://thehill.com/policy/international/476109-un-gives-green-light-to-draft-treaty-to-combat-cybercrime https://news.yahoo.com/un-backs-russia-internet-convention-alarming-rights-advocates-011310327.html Best wishes, Olivier _______________________________________________ ccwg-internet-governance mailing list ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 30 18:45:30 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:45:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?12_Streams_=235_=E2=80=93_The_Road_to_AfPI?= =?UTF-8?Q?F_10_/_Le_chemin_vers_AfPIF-10_=E2=80=93_Karen_Rose_and_Michuki?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Mwangi_=23AfPIF2019_=40ISOC=5FAfrica_=40michukis_=40KarenRose3?= =?UTF-8?Q?60?= Message-ID: In case it's not clear below, the french interpretation stream will immediately follow the English. Each presentation lasts 1 hour. Dans le cas où ce n'est pas clair ci-dessous, le stream d'interprétation en français suivra immédiatement l'anglais. Chaque présentation dure 1 heure. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday December 30 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in the fifth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature The Road to AfPIF 10 - a keynote at the 10th African Peering and Interconnection For" [image: livestream] Today, *Monday December 30 2019*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the fifth installment of the* Internet Society Livestreaming *‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams*‘ annual highlights, we feature *The Road to AfPIF 10* - a keynote at the *10th African Peering and Interconnection Forum * (AfPIF) - Bataclava, Mauritius on August 20 2019. Presenters *Karen Rose*, former Senior Director of Strategic Development and Business Planning at the Internet Society, and *Michuki Mwangi*, Regional Development Manager for Africa at the Internet Society provide a snapshot history of the growth of this event that addresses the key interconnection, peering, and traffic exchange opportunities and challenges on the continent. Aujourd'hui, *lundi 30 décembre 2019*, à *20 h HNE* (01 h 00 UTC), dans le cinquième épisode des faits saillants annuels `` *12 jours de streams* '' de l'*Internet Society *, nous présentons* Le chemin vers AfPIF-10* - une allocution à la* 10e édition de la conférence africaine Forum de Peering et d'Interconnexion * (AfPIF) - Bataclava, Maurice le 20 août 2019. Les présentateurs *Karen Rose*, ancienne directrice principale du développement stratégique et de la planification des affaires à l'Internet Society, et *Michuki Mwangi*, directeur du développement régional pour l'Afrique à l'Internet Society, fournissent un un aperçu de la croissance de cet événement qui aborde les principales opportunités et défis d'interconnexion, de peering et d'échange de trafic sur le continent. * VIEW / VUE LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afpif10 * *SLIDES: https://isoc.live/afpif10/1-2a_Keynote_Presentation-The_Road_to_AfPIF-10.pdf * *PROMO VIDEO: https://isoc.live/afpif10/1-2b_The_Road_to_AfPIF-10.mp4 * *ORIGINAL STREAMS: ENGLISH | FRANCAIS :* *YOUTUBE: ENGLISH | FRANCAIS :* *TWITTER: #12Streams #AfPIF2019 @ISOC_Africa @michukis @KarenRose360* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11633/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Mon Dec 30 19:10:29 2019 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:10:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?12_Streams_=235_=E2=80=93_The_Road_to_?= =?UTF-8?Q?AfPIF_10_/_Le_chemin_vers_AfPIF-10_=E2=80=93_Karen_Rose_and_Mic?= =?UTF-8?Q?huki_Mwangi_=23AfPIF2019_=40ISOC=5FAfrica_=40michukis_=40KarenR?= =?UTF-8?Q?ose360?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joly – Thank you for re-sending this, and for helping us stream this event. AfPIF truly is an amazing community event, and the 10th Anniversary event was pretty humbling. Rock-on IXPs, and better peering and interconnection across Africa and the rest of the planet. And, Here is to the development of more IXPs in 2020 with fabulous partners 😉!! Note: AfPIF 2020 will be in Kigali in August. Check here for dates and more in early January: https://www.afpif.org/ Best, Jane From: on behalf of Joly MacFie Reply-To: Joly MacFie Date: Monday, December 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM To: governance Subject: [governance] 12 Streams #5 – The Road to AfPIF 10 / Le chemin vers AfPIF-10 – Karen Rose and Michuki Mwangi #AfPIF2019 @ISOC_Africa @michukis @KarenRose360 In case it's not clear below, the french interpretation stream will immediately follow the English. Each presentation lasts 1 hour. Dans le cas où ce n'est pas clair ci-dessous, le stream d'interprétation en français suivra immédiatement l'anglais. Chaque présentation dure 1 heure. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday December 30 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in the fifth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature The Road to AfPIF 10 - a keynote at the 10th African Peering and Interconnection For" [Image removed by sender. livestream]Today, Monday December 30 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in the fifth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature The Road to AfPIF 10 - a keynote at the 10th African Peering and Interconnection Forum (AfPIF) - Bataclava, Mauritius on August 20 2019. Presenters Karen Rose, former Senior Director of Strategic Development and Business Planning at the Internet Society, and Michuki Mwangi, Regional Development Manager for Africa at the Internet Society provide a snapshot history of the growth of this event that addresses the key interconnection, peering, and traffic exchange opportunities and challenges on the continent. Aujourd'hui, lundi 30 décembre 2019, à 20 h HNE (01 h 00 UTC), dans le cinquième épisode des faits saillants annuels `` 12 jours de streams '' de l'Internet Society, nous présentons Le chemin vers AfPIF-10 - une allocution à la 10e édition de la conférence africaine Forum de Peering et d'Interconnexion (AfPIF) - Bataclava, Maurice le 20 août 2019. Les présentateurs Karen Rose, ancienne directrice principale du développement stratégique et de la planification des affaires à l'Internet Society, et Michuki Mwangi, directeur du développement régional pour l'Afrique à l'Internet Society, fournissent un un aperçu de la croissance de cet événement qui aborde les principales opportunités et défis d'interconnexion, de peering et d'échange de trafic sur le continent. VIEW / VUE LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/afpif10 SLIDES: https://isoc.live/afpif10/1-2a_Keynote_Presentation-The_Road_to_AfPIF-10.pdf PROMO VIDEO: https://isoc.live/afpif10/1-2b_The_Road_to_AfPIF-10.mp4 ORIGINAL STREAMS: ENGLISH | FRANCAIS: YOUTUBE: ENGLISH | FRANCAIS: TWITTER: #12Streams #AfPIF2019 @ISOC_Africa @michukis @KarenRose360 Permalink https://isoc.live/11633/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Dec 31 19:18:51 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:18:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?12_Streams_=236_=E2=80=93_The_Birth_of_the?= =?UTF-8?Q?_ARPANET_w/Steve_Crocker=2C_Vint_Cerf=2C_Bob_Kahn=2C_Bill_Duval?= =?UTF-8?Q?l=2C_Len_Kleinrock_and_Charles_Kline?= Message-ID: As these Internet 50 year celebrations got underway, one pedantic party pooper pointed out that the original message sent on October 29 1969 was, in fact, between two computers, not two networks. That would come a little later. Nevertheless it was a great leap forward and, in these sessions, we hear from some of the people who made it possible. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday December 31 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in the sixth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature three streams that celebrated the 50th anniversary of first message sent across the" [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday December 31 2019*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the sixth installment of the *Internet Society Livestreaming*‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams *‘ annual highlights, we feature three streams that celebrated the 50th anniversary of first message sent across the ARPANET, precursor to the Internet, featuring engineers, and *Internet Hall of Fame * inductees, *Steve Crocker*, *Vint Cerf*, *Bob Kahn*, *Bill Duvall*, *Len Kleinrock* and *Charles Kline* in various combinations. The first stream is the 2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting in Washington DC '*Celebrating 50 Years Since “LO”*' in February 2019. The second is a session '*Before the Beginning*' from the UCLA 50th Anniversary of the Internet Celebration event in Los Angeles in October 2019. The third is a LACNIC webinar '*50 Years Later, Looking Back at the Internet’s Birth*' from November 2019. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet * *ORIGINAL STREAMS* *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet50 * *https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50 * *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/internet50lacnic * *TWITTER: #12STREAMS #ARPANET #Internet50* *@vgcerf @kleinrock @bobkahn_brand @LACNIC @UCLA* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11641/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 2 05:49:20 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 05:49:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Sylvain > . I have not seen anywhere a mention of CoI (Conflict of Interest) to justify... His wife is on the PIR advisory council. joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Mon Dec 2 05:56:40 2019 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 05:56:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Joly is right about pricing. The normal price for a company with $50M in annual earnings is $300-600M. That's a multiple of 6-12 times. PIR is going for 22 times. While it's not impossible we'd get a higher bid, it would be unlikely. There are important issues beyond price that could make the deal a mistake. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:44 AM Joly MacFie wrote: > > Hi Parminder > > > What are your sources, in case you can tell us that. > > Sure. Last Friday's Q&A. I made a transcript. > > https://isoc.live/pir/PIR_Community_Forum.pdf > > > As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one > wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert > advice exists. > > As trustees their fiduciary duty was to get the best advice available and > act appropriately in the best interest of the organization and sustaining > its mission. > > > > 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, > > > You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a > consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? > > No I cannot prove that. I don't think there's anything even now to stop > you gathering such a consortium and making an offer. There may be penalties > if ISOC pulled out of the deal., That's something that has not been > disclosed. > > > > 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos > had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it > was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. > > > Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make > secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the > morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your > logic. > > Those are not ongoing concerns. Not the same thing at all. Again this was > the expert advice from people experienced in such transactions. > > It behooves ISOC to get all of its eggs out of one basket in the Interest > of the entire Internet Community, not just .org registrants, for whom the > sky may not fall. > > joly > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:55 AM parminder > wrote: > >> >> On 02/12/19 12:03 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: >> >> Hi Mwenda, >> >> My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what they >> did. Take expert advice >> >> Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but >> nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this offer >> came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert advice, The >> advice was >> >> Thanks Joly, you seem to know much more than was is publicly available... >> What are your sources, in case you can tell us that.. >> >> As for expert advice, it is not difficult to get the expert advice one >> wants to get. That is why due processes of accountability beyond expert >> advice exists. >> >> 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, >> >> You have no way to prove that I could not have pulled together a >> consortium in India that would have paid a higher price. Can you? This is >> especially my right as an ISOC member, when ISOC is supposed to be a global >> body. Why then do a sweetheart deal after some confabulations among US >> insiders? >> >> 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had >> said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was >> thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. >> >> Why does then ICANN auction gTLDs, and not take expert advice to make >> secret deals to maximise its reveues? Does its auction process reduce the >> morale and value of gTLDs or its buyers? I absolutely did not get your >> logic. >> >> ICANN has a rulebook whereby it has to auction gTLDs.... This rule exists >> as an obvious good practice, especially when dealing with a public or >> community asset.... ISOC did not have such a rule pre-established for it >> bec it is normally not in gTLDs selling business. But this does not mean >> that it can avoid observing the normal good practice, especially as >> involving a public or community asset, which most people take PIR to be, >> and is also indicated in its name. ISOC may not have broken any rule, but >> its secret sale of .org is absolutely against the spirit of community >> trusteeship that it is supposed to embody. >> >> It is for the civil society engaged with IG issues to seek accountability >> from ISOC in this regard. With non IG civil society organisations like Girl >> Scouts taking up the cudgels against ISOC it will be greatly amiss if we >> do not take any stand in this matter. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> Joly >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva < >> Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote: >> >>> If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the >>> best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b >>> is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will >>> be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the >>> value of .org way beyond the $2b mark >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: >>> >>>> Folks >>>> >>>> I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most >>>> skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, >>>> I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. >>>> >>>> When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, >>>> including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." >>>> Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization >>>> committed to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms >>>> we've discussed. >>>> >>>> I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list >>>> are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are >>>> crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them >>>> bother with this list or the ISOC board. >>>> >>>> It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open >>>> internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. >>>> If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no >>>> chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our >>>> members are not local. >>>> >>>> My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive >>>> MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, >>>> per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. >>>> >>>> I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on >>>> IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices >>>> need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than >>>> that. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down >>>> >>>> Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews >>>> of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are >>>> strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would >>>> get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money >>>> that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal >>>> should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or >>>> even delays. >>>> >>>> If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been >>>> among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key >>>> details were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information >>>> and public discussion. >>>> >>>> I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the >>>> rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving >>>> IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY >>>> board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the >>>> IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it >>>> was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a >>>> bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups >>>> together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional >>>> Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought >>>> "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." >>>> >>>> The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, >>>> talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika >>>> Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," >>>> writes, >>>> "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, >>>> which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not >>>> act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes >>>> a highly chaotic program. >>>> >>>> From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've >>>> reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from >>>> the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The >>>> non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global >>>> south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. >>>> Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in >>>> charge, presumably the ITU. >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Editor, https://Fastnet.news https://wirelessone.news Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 2 06:02:22 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:02:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > Joly is right about pricing. I don't have a clue about such matters. And even the Trustees considered themselves "amateurs" thus the expert advice. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 06:11:05 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:11:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <12BsRknDVmn01YS8n8Cojk9p4KG6wGI9NoI1EhwcSbzye2QLJlthiFFk7lIG73AygZHPbJQGHaHKpU_T_QDkM7dKZvnDa2iolSVs3C7mHww=@ferdeline.com> What was the expert advice that they received? I have looked up the biographies of the staff from Goldman Sachs (names per attendance log in the Board of Trustees meeting minutes) and some were quite junior. And the Board made their decision very quickly, meeting, as best I can tell, for a total of two days (with other items on their meeting agenda) to discuss a sale this major. That is not necessarily problematic, but it does raise questions about how comprehensive their due diligence was. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 12:02, Joly MacFie wrote: >> Joly is right about pricing. > > I don't have a clue about such matters. And even the Trustees considered themselves "amateurs" thus the expert advice. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 10:25:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:25:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] FUD - Fear Uncertainty Doubt about the PIR Sale Message-ID: {/i apologize for starting this email, in case there is someone who will not be glad !/} Hi all, FUD [a] ??? ...during the same week, two consecutive days, i read this [a] for the first time ; it was on this mailing list. When it was address to me the email was sent on my birthday :-) So, thanks for those who wrote [b][c] it [a], yes i have been informed about two thinks :  •—• • FUD has a definition [a] : Fear Uncertainty Doubt • My questions [d] was full of FUD. • {i was only thinking aloud [d] in response of an assertion [e]. But i got it! i certainly went too fare, and those who were not able to understand the view of others might now catch what MUST/SHOULD certainly not occur. Then instead of trying to convince those who are seeing the danger in this deal, should they ask to the dealer and the buyer of the Public Interest Registry to co-sign (/with PIR, ISOC, ICANN // / /and a representative of the non-commercial Internet community/) a *document of Public commitment* ; where they shall commit to operate the .ORG registry () under, at least the same principles used by the PIR (/see ICANN's criteria [f], which states that // / /the new owner of the registry should match or improve the quality of // / /the service/) and to *only* rise the price when there is a rise in the cost.} •—• "[...]I wont engage with pure unfounded and factless information, I would much prefer that instead of shouting at the wall, the non commercial community actually step up and start working towards actual concrete steps to lower the risks or to ensure compliance with the statements from ISOC and Ethos around their plans, FUD gets us nowhere.[...]" [2] "[...]No, they won’t, because it won’t happen.  You’re going overboard in your  effort to create FUD.[...]" [3] "[...] ...please tell them that they can (/even without sourcing their affirmation/) then note that the  minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their  'well intended' *big deal*.  Why ? ...i guess that 1% of 10M (/domain names/) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under    the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are   still oppressed by 99% of 10M :'-( Questions :  •—• |1) Do you think that the non-commercial [1] world should be eliminated to the Internet ? |  |2) Which solution would you propose to the non-commercial Internet Community  | to resist then continue to exist ? |  |3) Do you see the FotI (/Future of the Internet/) [2] without the non-commercial [1]  | Community ? |  |4) How are you understanding the *vision* [3] of the InternetSociety.ORG ? |  |5) Do you think that the *Building Trust* [4] commitment is compatible with all  | the consequences of the sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) ? {/..including: / /| eliminating the non-commercial [1] World in the Internet/} |  |6) What is you understanding of words such as inclusiveness, multistakeholder, ... ? |  |7) • •—• __ [1]: It's a word! see criterion 4 to 7 [2]: FotI [3]: [4]: [...]" [d] __ [a]: [b]: [c]: [d]: [e]: [f]: ...see criterion 7 Thanks Happy & Blessed week ! Shalom, --sb. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 11:04:03 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:04:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already. In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work And b) to ensure access for the public interest. 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now? And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better suited for revenue creation. My questions for ISOC would be: a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this asset? b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the continuance of ISOC's income? Best wishes Deirdre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sun Dec 1 13:33:44 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:33:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Mwenda, My guess is, if you were on the ISOC Board you would have done what they did. Take expert advice Apparently there were earlier offers - more than one at least - but nothing that the ISOC BoT considered remotely acceptable. Then this offer came in. So, they contemplated an auction. They took expert advice, The advice was 1) they were unlikely to get a higher bid, 2) an auction could damage PIR both in morale and value. Plus Ethos had said they were not interested in participating in an auction, and it was thought they might just walk away. The decision was made to negotiate. Joly On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > If I was on the ISOC board, I would probably suggest an auction as the > best bet. Buying a $100m annual revenue company with few overheads at $1.3b > is a steal anywhere. With the right strategy, the return on investment will > be in less than 10 years. A simplistic reasonable RoI of 20years puts the > value of .org way beyond the $2b mark > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019, 23:58 Dave Burstein wrote: > >> Folks >> >> I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most >> skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, >> I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. >> >> When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, >> including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." >> Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization committed >> to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've >> discussed. >> >> I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list >> are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are >> crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them >> bother with this list or the ISOC board. >> >> It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open >> internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. >> If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no >> chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our >> members are not local. >> >> My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive MIMO >> is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, per >> Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. >> >> I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on >> IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices >> need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than >> that. >> >> >> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down >> >> Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down >> >> >> Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews >> of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are >> strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would >> get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money >> that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal >> should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or >> even delays. >> >> If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among >> the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details >> were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public >> discussion. >> >> I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the >> rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. >> >> >> https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving >> IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving >> >> >> "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY >> board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the >> IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it >> was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a >> bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups >> together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional >> Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought >> "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." >> >> The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, >> talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika >> Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," >> writes, >> "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, >> which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not >> act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes >> a highly chaotic program. >> >> From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've >> reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from >> the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The >> non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global >> south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. >> Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in >> charge, presumably the ITU. >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 13:10:39 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:10:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <733200318.1819094.1575310239496@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Deirdre,Very valid and important questions you asked. ICANN Board (under the Chairmanship of Vent Cerf) accepted the higher bid of PIR/ISOC (founded by Vint Cert) giving a favor for steady income source. This one time income of $1.13b will be distributed and spend in very short time span, how the organization will be surviving after couple of years? Perhaps income generating through higher membership fee .....or otherwise, reducing its overall services and cutting down operational costs. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah. On Monday, 2 December 2019, 21:04:33 GMT+5, Deirdre Williams wrote: Dear Colleagues, An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already. In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work And b) to ensure access for the public interest. 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now? And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better suited for revenue creation. My questions for ISOC would be: a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this asset? b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the continuance of ISOC's income? Best wishes Deirdre --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 13:16:59 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:16:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. In-Reply-To: <733200318.1819094.1575310239496@mail.yahoo.com> References: <733200318.1819094.1575310239496@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I do not want to be the one coming to ISOC’s defence here, however the plan - of creating an endowment, and investing it wisely - is tried and tested enough to be able to sustain ISOC’s current annual spending patterns in perpetuity. I don’t believe the intention is to grow or shrink the organization. This is not to say I necessarily think that ISOC does enough good work to justify an endowment — just that as a financial strategy, I think it is sound. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 19:10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > Very valid and important questions you asked. > > ICANN Board (under the Chairmanship of Vent Cerf) accepted the higher bid of PIR/ISOC (founded by Vint Cert) giving a favor for steady income source. This one time income of $1.13b will be distributed and spend in very short time span, how the organization will be surviving after couple of years? Perhaps income generating through higher membership fee .....or otherwise, reducing its overall services and cutting down operational costs. > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah. > > On Monday, 2 December 2019, 21:04:33 GMT+5, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already. > In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries > a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work > And b) to ensure access for the public interest. > 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now? And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. > In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better suited for revenue creation. > My questions for ISOC would be: > a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this asset? > b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the continuance of ISOC's income? > Best wishes > Deirdre > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Dec 2 13:30:01 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:30:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Deirdre > 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. My understanding is that the principal will be invested, only (some of) the income will be spent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment According to the Q&A sessions, some factors in the Trustees thinking (in my interpretation) 1) They had long been concerned that nearly all of ISOC's financial eggs were in one basket. In fact it was one big egg. 2) There had also been discussion of the need to invest in PIR, and how that might affect ISOC's immediate income. 3) There had been offers, but such that they were summarily dismissed as unrealistic. 4) The Ethos offer was significantly more and would guarantee ISOC's income over a diverse set of investments. 5) Expert advice informed them they were unlikely to get a better offer, and an auction could lose them the offer/ mess with PIR. 6) The same advice told them that the likelihood that Ethos would flip PIR was next to zero. 7) Ethos made undertakings to continue run PIR in the public interest, and hired people familiar with community concerns. 8) In any auction it would be pretty much impossible to evaluate such commitments. 8) The investors in Ethos had eggs in other baskets, and more money, thus would be freer of financial pressure. 9) The trustees had a fiduciary duty to ISOC and to sustain its mission. 10) In their understanding of the domain name market, major price rises were proven losers. 11) No one can say that the DNS will rule forever. 12) The endowment would allow long term planning. 13) PIR is constrained by its contracts with ICANN. Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor. I am sure there was plenty back and forth before that happened. joly On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Deirdre Williams < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the > reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already. > In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries > a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work > And b) to ensure access for the public interest. > 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now? > And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. > In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee > MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need > on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better > suited for revenue creation. > My questions for ISOC would be: > a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this asset? > b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the > continuance of ISOC's income? > Best wishes > Deirdre > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Dec 2 14:48:20 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 20:48:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Le lundi 2 décembre 2019, Joly MacFie a écrit : > Hi Sylvain > > > . I have not seen anywhere a mention of CoI (Conflict of Interest) to > justify... > > His wife is on the PIR advisory council. > ...thanks, dear Joly, now i recall that something like that appeared in an article :-/ It seems as i missed it from the last published InternetSociety.ORG BoT's minutes [1] ? __ [1]: Shalom, --sb. joly > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Mon Dec 2 15:46:47 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 20:46:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Responses in line: From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of parminder We must understand that unique names and addresses on the Internet are basically a common or public good... Its value is not created by anyone to be able to profit from it, it belongs to all, the logic of which is self evident. MM: Domain names are not public goods. This claim is based on ignorance of economic theory and of domain names. A public good is nonrival in consumption and nonexclusive. Domain names are neither. When one entity or individual registers a domain, others can’t use it. Ergo, a domain name is NOT non rival in consumption it is a private property. Also, if I am the registrant or owner of a domain, I can exclude others from using it. Hence, domain names are not nonexclusive. Those facts, to quote someone, are self-evident. Whatever your opinion of the .ORG sale, the notion of public goods is utterly irrelevant. For this reason, core gTLDs, esp as carrying denominations that are essential to definition of some social entities, like .org, or .edu, .health, etc, should also be common or public goods. MM: So, do I get to use itforchange.net? If it’s a public good you can’t exclude me from it. Shall I throw up my own web site on that domain? And accuse you of being an evil neoliberal for excluding me from it? These should ideally be managed as non -profit -- on no-profit no-loss basis. But, in these neo-liberal times when even non profits are advised to work on market principles, even if for efficiency sake we are to take the services of a for-profit to run this commons/ public service it should be so arranged that the profits, or service fees, are quite modest. MM: .ORG has been making a $40-50 million profit every year. The sale per se doesn’t change that. What we should be concerned about is whether the new owners, lacking any connection to the internet or nonprofit communities, will try to “milk” the domain and fail to maintain its reputation. Let’s stop spouting anti-market rhetoric, which does no one any good in this context, and keep our eyes on the prize: we need modifications in the registry agreement, as described here: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3421 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From bzs at theworld.com Mon Dec 2 16:02:43 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:02:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: <24037.31731.990756.37550@gargle.gargle.HOWL> I suppose it's possible a strongly worded letter to ISOC will convince them not to cash that $1.1B check. But assuming it's a fait accompli might it be more productive to request a seat on the PIR advisory board (from PIR) and perhaps for support from ISOC (from ISOC) for whatever civil society (&c) aggregate podium people here are speaking from? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From milton at gatech.edu Mon Dec 2 16:10:56 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 21:10:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the analysis in this piece is rubbish. It assumes e.g. a leveraged buyout using borrowed money. But set that aside for the moment. It is inconsistent to jump up and down and scream that the sale of .org constitutes a horrible commercialization of the internet, and then turn around and complain that ISOC didn’t get enough capital for it. What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to make noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better protections for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter. Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net > On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:42 AM To: governance > Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2870 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Mon Dec 2 16:37:30 2019 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 21:37:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> All of the recent entrails examination is interesting, but I do agree with Milton here...we cannot complain about commercialization and then say by the way, that was not a high enough price. So better not to refer to this analysis in anything we write. It is fair to question whether this was a good process, but the line is thin and we don't want to cross it. cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2019-12-02 16:10, Mueller, Milton L wrote: I think the analysis in this piece is rubbish. It assumes e.g. a leveraged buyout using borrowed money. But set that aside for the moment. It is inconsistent to jump up and down and scream that the sale of .org constitutes a horrible commercialization of the internet, and then turn around and complain that ISOC didn’t get enough capital for it. What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to make noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better protections for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter. Dr. Milton L Mueller School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net > On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:42 AM To: governance > Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2870 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 17:01:35 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 22:01:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Stephanie, Milton- That is a good point and I agree we do not need to refer to this piece in any of our contributions on this topic. I shared it because it appears that ISOC was prepared to sell PIR for less than it was worth. There may have been impact investors with a billion dollars - and a proven track record of doing good - that would have been willing to buy PIR and to let it continue to operate in the public interest, generating more modest returns, as they have other investments able to cover their needs/targets. Instead, ISOC has proposed to sell PIR to a shell company with no track record of doing just that. ISOC's CEO said last Friday, "This is a large amount of money that came to us unexpectedly. We were not looking for this. The buyer came to us and proposed a very large transaction. We concluded that that would provide us with a fund that we could then invest as an endowment." That, to me, sounds like inadequate due diligence, particularly in the absence of additional information about what other bids were sought. If ISOC had received multiple bids, and sold PIR to an ethical investor for a reduced price, that would perhaps be justifiable. But given the facts we currently have available, we can only ponder what the pitch was that Ethos Capital had to attract its three Republican billionaire investors. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 22:37, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > All of the recent entrails examination is interesting, but I do agree with Milton here...we cannot complain about commercialization and then say by the way, that was not a high enough price. So better not to refer to this analysis in anything we write. > > It is fair to question whether this was a good process, but the line is thin and we don't want to cross it. > > cheers > > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2019-12-02 16:10, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> >> >> I think the analysis in this piece is rubbish. >> >> It assumes e.g. a leveraged buyout using borrowed money. >> >> But set that aside for the moment. >> >> It is inconsistent to jump up and down and scream that the sale of .org constitutes a horrible commercialization of the internet, and then turn around and complain that ISOC didn’t get enough capital for it. >> >> What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to make noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better protections for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter. >> >> Dr. Milton L Mueller >> >> School of Public Policy >> >> Georgia Institute of Technology >> >> [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] >> >> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline >> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:42 AM >> To: governance >> Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? >> >> A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: >> >> https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >> List help: >> [](https://riseup.net/lists) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2870 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brett at accessnow.org Mon Dec 2 17:24:11 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:24:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Agreed with Ayden here. The fact that some are arguing that the monetary value doesn't reflect the real market value of the asset is a further reflection of the apparent failure of ISOC to do its due diligence and its unusually hurried and non consultative approach to this sale. It also goes to the heart of this most unusual sale -- if money was their main aim, why wouldn't they get the best price for it? One other thing. I think it is important to note that whatever value is ascribed to the asset be a fair price, after all, as was pointed out by my colleague Peter Micek, the value of .org is co--created by those who reside on .org ie us. We all helped create that value and to have it sold improperly and at fire-sale prices is both disrespecting the value of .org and its registrants. Having said that, I agree it doesn't need to be a main argument or even included :) Brett PS The actual article ( https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/) regardless is still worth reading. Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:02 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Stephanie, Milton- > > That is a good point and I agree we do not need to refer to this piece in > any of our contributions on this topic. > > I shared it because it appears that ISOC was prepared to sell PIR for less > than it was worth. > > There may have been impact investors with a billion dollars - and a proven > track record of doing good - that would have been willing to buy PIR and to > let it continue to operate in the public interest, generating more modest > returns, as they have other investments able to cover their needs/targets. > > Instead, ISOC has proposed to sell PIR to a shell company with no track > record of doing just that. > > ISOC's CEO said last Friday, "This is a large amount of money that came to > us unexpectedly. We were not looking for this. The buyer came to us and > proposed a very large transaction. We concluded that that would provide us > with a fund that we could then invest as an endowment." > > That, to me, sounds like inadequate due diligence, particularly in the > absence of additional information about what other bids were sought. If > ISOC had received multiple bids, and sold PIR to an ethical investor for a > reduced price, that would perhaps be justifiable. But given the facts we > currently have available, we can only ponder what the pitch was that Ethos > Capital had to attract its three Republican billionaire investors. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Monday, 2 December 2019 22:37, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > All of the recent entrails examination is interesting, but I do agree with > Milton here...we cannot complain about commercialization and then say by > the way, that was not a high enough price. So better not to refer to this > analysis in anything we write. > > It is fair to question whether this was a good process, but the line is > thin and we don't want to cross it. > > cheers > > Stephanie Perrin > On 2019-12-02 16:10, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > > I think the analysis in this piece is rubbish. > > It assumes e.g. a leveraged buyout using borrowed money. > > But set that aside for the moment. > > > > It is inconsistent to jump up and down and scream that the sale of .org > constitutes a horrible commercialization of the internet, and then turn > around and complain that ISOC didn’t get enough capital for it. > > What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to > make noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better > protections for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter. > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > [image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] > > > > > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline > *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2019 3:42 AM > *To:* governance > *Subject:* [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? > > > > A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on > the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about > US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue > with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless: > > > > https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/ > > > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2870 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 1 13:58:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 18:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> Dear(s) Sheetal and All Thanks for summarizing the question to be submitted, I would like to add few comments: 1. Although transparency has been a basic requirement for non-commercial organizations in public interest, however, only questioning about transparency could help in solving the puzzle (what, why, how) but does not solve the matter of selling non-commercial entity to the commercial one. If the ISoc BoT takes a decision on transparency by opening the deal of selling it, how it will solve the issue. Actually, ISOC sold PIR, while every one is discussing the registry .Org managed by PIR. dot ORG Registry encapsulated with in this sale of PIR. I suggest we have to address the matter differently. 2. There had been suggestions from few of the friends for ensuring the Price-cap regulation, how a commercial entity will accept it, or how long non-commercial entity will remain under bindings? How they can leave the competitive market and open competition aside? 3. By the way, current market price of .org domain name is already double of the price of .com, why? has CS taken any action? and why not half instead of double? 4. Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital presence of work for good reasons". Here, I would like to quote a practical example of the ISOC Pakistan chapter. "ISOC Pakistan chapter blog (its digital presence) was established on Ning (initially free platform), it has been active for years and community members were engaged for IG related discussion (taking advantage of blog). At a stage, Ning suddenly applied few $ fee, in a result the blog was disabled and chapter has no membership records, ISoc removed chapter's membership and finally it is disappeared. 5. ISOC was getting millions from PIR, why it is being sold? 6. In my point of view, .org should remain under the stewardship, control/, administered by non-commercial entities and should have to be operated by not for profit entities. 7. I am afraid of this kind of practice, "the encapsulated sale of TLD's Registry". Think.... if the same practice is exercised by the other "Public Interest and community related" s/g/TLD's Registry Owners.... In 2009, I have said in ICANN;s Public Forum (Seoul Meeting) that their action will be starting a big Gambling Game. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  Consultant/ Advisor TLDians.OrgUrdu Internet Council On Sunday, 1 December 2019, 21:44:39 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear Ayden, all, Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote:  Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses.  Please try again, with simpler construction.  You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb.                                   -Bill -- -- Best Regards !                          baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Mon Dec 2 18:00:31 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:00:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24037.38799.103553.662603@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Mueller, Milton L" >What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to make >noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better protections >for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter. Yes, Milton, you're right, it's reminiscent of the old Woody Allen joke (I'm cutting and pasting this so don't blame me for details): ``"...two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."'' -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From bzs at theworld.com Mon Dec 2 18:38:01 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:38:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: References: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <24037.41049.674299.337197@gargle.gargle.HOWL> It's not a science but the ~$50M/year operating income treated as a bond returning 3% yields $1.5B. Discount that for risk and it sold at about a 25% discount which is probably not unreasonable. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 18:48:10 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 23:48:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table? In-Reply-To: <24037.41049.674299.337197@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <7814a362-1604-91d3-33a0-d62b1f776ebf@mail.utoronto.ca> <24037.41049.674299.337197@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.D06ED1F0-F73C-4C8F-9FD2-1038FD45EE2F@mail.outlook.com> Brett - I’m afraid that over the years actual nonprofit domains are literally a small fraction of the domains that .org has on board.  10 million org domains, a few hundred thousand nonprofits. So co creators of value is unfortunately not an argument that will stand --srs On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:08 AM +0530, wrote: It's not a science but the ~$50M/year operating income treated as a bond returning 3% yields $1.5B. Discount that for risk and it sold at about a 25% discount which is probably not unreasonable. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Mon Dec 2 18:48:16 2019 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:48:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joly is right about the financial issues here - which are not the only consideration - but Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor. Does not correspond to any definition I know of multistakeholder, all of which, including ISOC's include that the membership/stakeholders play a direct role in making major decisions. A definition like that destroys the meaning of multistakeholder. After all, the US Senate and President is elected and nominally represents "the people." Does that mean every decision by the US gov is "multistakeholder." Especially given we have "the finest Congress money can buy." *In addition, Chairman Camarillo has said the exact opposite, *specifically that board members may be chosen but are *not* representatives. Rather the board members make decisions independently in the overall interests of ISOC. Which is how they have always behaved. I don't remember *any* board member consulting widely on *any* major decision. It is a convenient fantasy for people who want to keep top management in charge at ISOC. We all lie to ourselves to justify our beliefs. It reminds me of the claims from Saudi Arabia and Russia they made Internet decisions in a multistakeholder way. The Saudis pointed to the consultations they had. After all, most Chinese actually believe no one has ever represented the people more effectively than the Chinese Communist Party. (Per the closest thing we have to accurate polls in China. Outside of Hong Kong, it probably is true that "democracy" does not appeal to most Chinese, right or wrong. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:31 PM Joly MacFie wrote: > Hi Deirdre > > > 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. > > My understanding is that the principal will be invested, only (some of) > the income will be spent. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment > > According to the Q&A sessions, some factors in the Trustees thinking (in > my interpretation) > > 1) They had long been concerned that nearly all of ISOC's financial eggs > were in one basket. In fact it was one big egg. > 2) There had also been discussion of the need to invest in PIR, and how > that might affect ISOC's immediate income. > 3) There had been offers, but such that they were summarily dismissed as > unrealistic. > 4) The Ethos offer was significantly more and would guarantee ISOC's > income over a diverse set of investments. > 5) Expert advice informed them they were unlikely to get a better offer, > and an auction could lose them the offer/ mess with PIR. > 6) The same advice told them that the likelihood that Ethos would flip PIR > was next to zero. > 7) Ethos made undertakings to continue run PIR in the public interest, > and hired people familiar with community concerns. > 8) In any auction it would be pretty much impossible to evaluate such > commitments. > 8) The investors in Ethos had eggs in other baskets, and more money, thus > would be freer of financial pressure. > 9) The trustees had a fiduciary duty to ISOC and to sustain its mission. > 10) In their understanding of the domain name market, major price rises > were proven losers. > 11) No one can say that the DNS will rule forever. > 12) The endowment would allow long term planning. > 13) PIR is constrained by its contracts with ICANN. > > Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational > members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor. > > I am sure there was plenty back and forth before that happened. > > joly > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Deirdre Williams < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the >> reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already. >> In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries >> a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work >> And b) to ensure access for the public interest. >> 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now? >> And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish. >> In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee >> MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need >> on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better >> suited for revenue creation. >> My questions for ISOC would be: >> a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this >> asset? >> b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the >> continuance of ISOC's income? >> Best wishes >> Deirdre >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Editor, https://Fastnet.news https://wirelessone.news Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Mon Dec 2 19:42:58 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:42:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <24037.31731.990756.37550@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> <25F457B8D0530B29.8B4613D5-1BC8-4E7B-B533-EF45EF809050@mail.outlook.com> <24037.31731.990756.37550@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: > I suppose it's possible a strongly worded letter to ISOC will convince > them not to cash that $1.1B check. Probably not. But Article 9 of the Articles of Incorporation on file with the Pennsylvania Department of State [1] for the Public Interest Registry state that upon its dissolution (i.e. changing status from a 501c3 to a B-Corp or whatever new legal structure it takes), all assets must be disposed of by the courts. Or at least that is my reading of the provision. And that sounds consistent with what ISOC's CEO said last Friday, that the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania could put a halt to the sale, and seeming to imply that ISOC/PIR would be petitioning the court to grant the sale. I'd love to read a more thorough legal analysis on this topic, if someone could offer one, as I might be misunderstanding options here. > But assuming it's a fait accompli might it be more productive to > request a seat on the PIR advisory board (from PIR) and perhaps for > support from ISOC (from ISOC) for whatever civil society (&c) > aggregate podium people here are speaking from? PIR does have an advisory council, as does ISOC (which has at least two that I'm aware of), neither of which were consulted before this major decision was made. I'm not sure what the point of these councils is, given that, so having representation on them may not be as impactful as we might hope. No harm in asking though - perhaps we can reform them - so I think your suggestion is a very good one. Thanks for suggesting it. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline [1] PDF available here: https://www.docdroid.net/q5ZBsKb/tsc191202131012.pdf#page=4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, 2 December 2019 22:02, wrote: > > > I suppose it's possible a strongly worded letter to ISOC will convince > them not to cash that $1.1B check. > > But assuming it's a fait accompli might it be more productive to > request a seat on the PIR advisory board (from PIR) and perhaps for > support from ISOC (from ISOC) for whatever civil society (&c) > aggregate podium people here are speaking from? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -Barry Shein > > > Software Tool & Die |bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | oo > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > List help: https://riseup.net/lists From icggov at johnlevine.com Mon Dec 2 21:35:49 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 2 Dec 2019 21:35:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191203023549.C8F37100647B@ary.qy> In article you write: >Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational >members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor. > >Does not correspond to any definition I know of multistakeholder, all of >which, including ISOC's include that the membership/stakeholders play a >direct role in making major decisions. ... The ISOC bylaws that define how the board is selected are published on the ISOC web site. You presumably have been involved in the election of the chapter members of the board. Surely there is no surprise here. R's, John From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Dec 3 09:13:37 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:13:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> <5b34e188-7e0d-8720-5857-5995f5e2040c@itforchange.net> <46f2da89-f02d-5138-ddac-31a405e17c29@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <92e9d30a-e76d-a0b2-3de1-a1574b048d91@cafonso.ca> Mostly agree with MM, except for... [see below] On 02/12/2019 17:46, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Responses in line: > > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of parminder > > > We must understand that unique names and addresses on the Internet are basically a common or public good... Its value is not created by anyone to be able to profit from it, it belongs to all, the logic of which is self evident. > > MM: Domain names are not public goods. This claim is based on ignorance of economic theory and of domain names. A public good is nonrival in consumption and nonexclusive. Domain names are neither. When one entity or individual registers a domain, others can’t use it. Ergo, a domain name is NOT non rival in consumption it is a private property. Also, if I am the registrant or owner of a domain, I can exclude others from using it. Hence, domain names are not nonexclusive. Those facts, to quote someone, are self-evident. Whatever your opinion of the .ORG sale, the notion of public goods is utterly irrelevant. c.a. --> Domain names are *not* private property. They are rented assets, if you wish, from an intermediary to a registry known as registrar. It is a concession, not a sale. You pay yearly to keep the concession, and the registry can even arbitrarily change the value of the annual rent, as it were -- as is now the case of .org/.ong/.ngo. Not public goods either, you are correct on this. Obviously there are particularities, like when a domain name maps into a trademark. > > For this reason, core gTLDs, esp as carrying denominations that are essential to definition of some social entities, like .org, or .edu, .health, etc, should also be common or public goods. > > MM: So, do I get to use itforchange.net? If it’s a public good you can’t exclude me from it. Shall I throw up my own web site on that domain? And accuse you of being an evil neoliberal for excluding me from i > > These should ideally be managed as non -profit -- on no-profit no-loss basis. But, in these neo-liberal times when even non profits are advised to work on market principles, even if for efficiency sake we are to take the services of a for-profit to run this commons/ public service it should be so arranged that the profits, or service fees, are quite modest. > > MM: .ORG has been making a $40-50 million profit every year. The sale per se doesn’t change that. What we should be concerned about is whether the new owners, lacking any connection to the internet or nonprofit communities, will try to “milk” the domain and fail to maintain its reputation. c.a. --> CGI.br, CIRA, PIR and some other cc/gTLD registries etc, are examples of non-profit distributors of domain names. This does not change the nature of the TLDs under their purview -- rented assets, not private properties of the domain name holders in possesion of these. Not public goods at all. And definitely not private properties of their holders. Nor are the TLDs private properties of their registries -- who can lose the contract once it expires and is renegotiated with the TLD broker known as ICANN. Actually, it has been mentioned that one of the suspected "fears" (unfounded in my view) of ISOC in deciding to get rid of the domain name business is the uncertainty of renewing the contract with ICANN when it expires. Who knows? > > Let’s stop spouting anti-market rhetoric, which does no one any good in this context, and keep our eyes on the prize: we need modifications in the registry agreement, as described here: > > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ c.a. --> Keep calm and carry on! :-) > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > School of Public Policy > Georgia Institute of Technology > [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] fraternal regards --c.a. -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From info at freshmail.de Tue Dec 3 09:56:43 2019 From: info at freshmail.de (Matthias Pfeifer) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:56:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Slides DNS Abuse IGF Berlin Message-ID: <00f201d5a9e9$e0dfb8d0$a29f2a70$@freshmail.de> Hello, can someone provide the slides from the session OF48 Open Forum on DNS abuse and misuse, whoch where used by Christine Hoepers? Best, Matthias Pfeifer From ayden at ferdeline.com Tue Dec 3 10:35:56 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 15:35:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Mozilla questions about PIR sale Message-ID: I think this is a very timely and useful intervention into the debate over the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital. Mark Surman, the executive director of the Mozilla Foundation, has outlined nine critical questions about the PIR sale that need answers: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/12/03/questions-about-org/ -- Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Dec 4 05:09:07 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:09:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST SATURDAY: NYC Community Forum on Algorithmic Bias in NYC #ADSCommunityForum Message-ID: This is shaping up to be a very large event, even possibly historic. I don't think we've ever seen the NAACP tackle a a technology head on before, and they have plenty of company, including ISOC-NY! This follows the release of a Taskforce Report by the City. The Mayor has announced an "Algorithms Czar " will be hired. ISOC Live posted: "On Saturday December 7 2019, from 11am-3pm (14:00-18:00 UTC), the Internet Society NY Chapter (ISOC-NY) will join the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) and co-partners to host Automating Bias: How Computers Are Making Decisions About Your Lif" [image: livestream] On *Saturday December 7 2019*, from *11am-3pm* (14:00-18:00 UTC), the *Internet Society NY Chapter * (ISOC-NY) will join the* NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund * (LDF) and co-partners to host *Automating Bias: How Computers Are Making Decisions About Your Life* . New York City agencies are relying on algorithms or *Automated Decision Systems * (ADSs) to make decisions about every major area of New Yorkers’ lives, including Public Housing, Education, Employment, Child Welfare, and Policing. While ADSs are pitched as being “objective,” these technologies frequently target and harm communities of color, low-income residents, youths, immigrants and religious communities, communities with disabilities, and more. This is a community-led event to learn more about this widely-used technology, and how NYC residents can demand change in its adoption and operation. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ADSCommunityForum * *ATTEND IN PERSON: http://bit.ly/32OHcbh * *TWITTER: #ADSCommunityForum @NAACP_LDF* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11560/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Sun Dec 1 15:57:10 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 15:57:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, I would strongly encourage IGC considers a "stop the sale" approach. Or as an alternative, an approach which demands ISOC's full transparency (including 1. releasing all board and other documentation on the sale and 2. answers to the range of questions listed above), BEFORE any further steps are taken to conclude the proposed sale. My own preference is to be firm, with a statement to 'stop the sale' and at the same time demand full transparency of ISOC that lead them to this point. Demanding both, to my mind, is the appropriate thing to do at this juncture. I think it's also important that we recognize that the sale *has not yet happened*, that ISOC can reverse the decision as requested by its Dutch Chapter (and now supported by the Swiss Chapter), the transaction will not conclude until the first quarter of next year at the earliest as ISOC indicated, and that ICANN can terminate any agreement under Article 7.5 of the Registry Agreement. Therefore due diligence questions should also be sent to ICANN ahead of any approvals and BEFORE ISOC proceeds any further with the sale. Thanks to all those who have been working on these issues for some time! Brett PS Here are the notes from the Public Town Hall at the IGF on Thursday, Access Now's call for stopping the sale , Tim Berners Lee's tweet calling the proposed sale a 'travesty ' and news that the Girl Scouts have called for the sale to be stopped. Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:59 PM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear(s) Sheetal and All > > Thanks for summarizing the question to be submitted, I would like to add > few comments: > > 1. Although transparency has been a basic requirement for non-commercial > organizations in public interest, however, only questioning about > transparency could help in solving the puzzle (what, why, how) but does not > solve the matter of selling non-commercial entity to the commercial one. If > the ISoc BoT takes a decision on transparency by opening the deal of > selling it, how it will solve the issue. Actually, ISOC sold PIR, while > every one is discussing the registry .Org managed by PIR. dot ORG Registry encapsulated > with in this sale of PIR. I suggest we have to address the matter > differently. > > 2. There had been suggestions from few of the friends for ensuring the Price-cap > regulation, how a commercial entity will accept it, or how long > non-commercial entity will remain under bindings? How they can leave the > competitive market and open competition aside? > > 3. By the way, current market price of .org domain name is already double > of the price of .com, why? has CS taken any action? and why not half > instead of double? > > 4. Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, > "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital > presence of work for good reasons". > > Here, I would like to quote a practical example of the ISOC Pakistan > chapter. > "ISOC Pakistan chapter blog (its digital presence) was established on Ning > (initially free platform), it has been active for years and community > members were engaged for IG related discussion (taking advantage of blog). > At a stage, Ning suddenly applied few $ fee, in a result the blog was > disabled and chapter has no membership records, ISoc removed chapter's > membership and finally it is disappeared. > > 5. ISOC was getting millions from PIR, why it is being sold? > > 6. In my point of view, .org should remain under the stewardship, > control/, administered by non-commercial entities and should have to be > operated by not for profit entities. > > 7. I am afraid of this kind of practice, "the encapsulated sale of TLD's > Registry". Think.... if the same practice is exercised by the other "Public > Interest and community related" s/g/TLD's Registry Owners.... In 2009, I > have said in ICANN;s Public Forum (Seoul Meeting) that their action will be > starting a big Gambling Game. > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > Consultant/ Advisor > TLDians.Org > Urdu Internet Council > > On Sunday, 1 December 2019, 21:44:39 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < > sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: > > > Dear Ayden, all, > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on > anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be > rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent > suggestions and remarks. > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting > up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to > ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding > the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request > that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants?- After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world?- What are ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital?* > > > *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust > among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who > play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* > > > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I > believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the > ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - > and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these > questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. > > ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that > there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. > And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did > before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it > has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon > wrote: > > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of > this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due > diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to > request they consider and answer certain questions. > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the > questions. See below: > > *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital* > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be > *eliminated* by their > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > Why ? > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] > world is under > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG > registrations they are > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. > You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to > make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be > able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > > -Bill > > > > -- > > > -- > Best Regards ! > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < > https://survey.cmnog.cm> > Subscribe to Mailing List : < > https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec > vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > -- > > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Dec 4 07:31:52 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:31:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Message-ID: Dear all, I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. Thanks and best wishes, Ayden Férdeline To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear Ayden, all, > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: > > - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? > - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? > - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" > - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? > > We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >> >>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>>  >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>> >>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>> >>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>> >>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>> >>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>> >>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>> >>>>> Shalom, >>>>> --sb. >>>>> >>>>>> -Bill >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>> __ >>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: > > -- > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Wed Dec 4 08:05:22 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:05:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B959905-3A0A-4221-B530-0164409D40C7@pch.net> Two suggestions: I wouldn’t say that getting out of the gTLD-selling business weakens or delegitimization ISOC. On the contrary, it disentangles them from a huge distraction from their mission, and gives them an endowment which secured their future. That’s the first thing in their minds, so I’d acknowledge that. Second, I think it’s worth referencing the principles of the 2002 transfer, which were that .ORG was to be both BY and FOR non-profits. Not that non-profits were grist for a for-profit mill. -Bill > On Dec 4, 2019, at 08:32, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. > > This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. > > Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. > > We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> Dear Ayden, all, >> >> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >> >> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >> >> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >> >> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >> >> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >> >> >> >> >>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>> >>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>> >>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>> >>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>  >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>> >>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>> >>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>> >>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>> --sb. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>> __ >>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 4 08:12:01 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:42:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> thanks for this effort Ayden But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? parminder On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. > Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point > (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. > This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale > altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of > posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a > different approach here. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > /To://    //Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, > Internet Society/ > > > /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by > the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the > Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), > including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.  // > / > > / > / > > /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private > entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken > ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining > non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a > counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, > and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains > are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While > the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can > also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights > implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do > what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of > doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. > It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.// > / > > / > / > > /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet > community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate > safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG > registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You > have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this > deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. > We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that > ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit > corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are > evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as > a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. // > / > > / > / > > /Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being > governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, > incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path > forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be > an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can > foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right > jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, > independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most > importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the > public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it > would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is > making today.// > / > > / // > / > > /We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos > Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information > about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to > investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require > assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names > that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising > efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are > symbols of our desire to do good./ > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear Ayden, all, >> >> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to >> agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree >> needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of >> the recent suggestions and remarks. >> >> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about >> setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending >> this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >> >> /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency >> regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of >> .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due >> diligence process:   / >> >> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? >> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights >> of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the >> sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the >> public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil >> society groups in the world? >> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged >> in missions of "public interest around the world?" >> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital?/ >> // >> /We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building >> trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally >> and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet./ >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline > > wrote: >> >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, >> I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect >> that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they >> could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both >> parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them >> seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the >> perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are >> behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more >> transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into >> the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in >> place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>   >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >> > wrote: >> >>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>  >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board >>>> with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? >>>> Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are >>>> wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will >>>> meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, >>>> we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they >>>> consider and answer certain questions. >>>> >>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on >>>> the questions. See below: >>>> >>>> /When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that >>>> these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   / >>>> >>>> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the >>>> existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing >>>> rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to >>>> ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >>>> behalf of the public interest and the world community of >>>> noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations >>>> engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >>>> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to >>>> Ethos capital/ >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal// >>>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock >>> > a écrit : >>>> >>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) >>>> then note that the >>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community >>>> is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>> > >>>> > Why ? >>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the >>>> non-commercial [1] world is under >>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, >>>> even in .ORG registrations they are >>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>> >>>> None of the above parses.  Please try again, with >>>> simpler construction.  You can break it out into as >>>> many sentences as you like, but please try to make each >>>> one encapsulate exactly one thought.  Else nobody is >>>> going to be able to engage in a constructive >>>> conversation with you. >>>> >>>> >>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>> >>>> Shalom, >>>> --sb. >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>>                                 -Bill >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards !                          >>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>> >>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>> >>>> __ >>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«/Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de >>>> ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!/» >>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>> «/Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi >>>> mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!/» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>> > >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>> E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>> > >>>> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 4 08:27:41 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:57:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] [article] The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6bc18ed8-7802-214a-4fec-37f728926259@itforchange.net> a forward, for those perhaps not following what others are talking about this sale.... There is no reason for IGC to soft-paddle this institutional corruption... Even small non profits cant sell their petty assets without proper bids and/or auction ... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Internet Policy] [article] The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:22:43 +0000 From: Ayden Férdeline via InternetPolicy Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline To: ISOC INTERNETPOLICY Sam Klein has published a new article that summarises well many of the unanswered questions and concerns that ISOC members have about the sale of PIR: http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/12/02/the-dot-org-fire-sale-sold-for-half-its-valuation/ * No competitive bid.  (/ISOC suggests that they had at least two bids. But the first public mention of bids is in the minutes of their 10/28 board meeting, and by 10/29 Sullivan had entered into exclusive talks with Ethos./) * No public market / sale analysis.  (/This makes it hard to determine whether the parties involved built in incentives to close a deal quickly, even if it was well under the market rate for the registry. At least one independent assessment put the value closer to $4B/) * No public story of how the deal came together.  (/The outline: Nevett is approached by Ethos for the first time in September, and has a complete offer to put before the ISOC board by late October, developed in private./) * No discussion of alternatives to financing an endowment.  (/National bond funds and other options have been suggested that could have allowed ISOC to diversify its investments without selling PIR outright./) * Analyses based on an assumption of no future growth.  (/PIR’s operating income has grown 20% each of the past two years, without raising prices; the new owner plans to raise prices continuously if steadily./) * No assessment of future impact or development of the registry.  (/Many questions about pricing, censorship, and squatting bear addressing, both for Ethos and for whoever it sells the registry to in the future. An assumption that no one would be hurt if prices were raised to $60/yr bears addressing in detail./) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile. - View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ From joly at punkcast.com Thu Dec 5 06:11:20 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:11:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Blockchain=E2=80=99s_Revo?= =?UTF-8?Q?lutionizing_Your_Digital_Identity_And_Government_Can_Lead_=23Bl?= =?UTF-8?Q?ockchainIC?= Message-ID: Get your acronyms straight on this. we are talking DLT (distributed layer technology) applied to IDMSs (identity management systems). Also be aware that the Internet Society has an active Blockchain SIG Community on ISOC Connect. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday December 5 2019 at 12pm EST (17:00 UTC) the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy hosts a panel "Blockchain Is Revolutionizing Your Digital Identity And Government Can Lead The Way" at Rayburn House in Washington DC. Blockchain technology is m" [image: Livestream] On *Thursday December 5 2019* at *12pm EST* (17:00 UTC) the *Congressional Internet Caucus Academy * hosts a panel "*Blockchain Is Revolutionizing Your Digital Identity And Government Can Lead The Way *" at Rayburn House in Washington DC. Blockchain technology is maturing rapidly and is opening new possibilities for innovation across spectrums. For example, digital identity initiatives such as *ID2020* , Workday's *Digital Credentials *, or even the US Government who have published a *draft NIST report *. With the promise of transformative impacts comes higher expectations on efficiency, privacy, and security. Congressional policy can play a key role in spurring the technology by creating an underlying legal framework that supports its use. Speakers: *Tiffany Angulo*, Legislative Director for Rep. David Schweikert; *Dan Bachenheimer*, Unique Identity Services, Accenture; *James Cross*, VP Product Strategy, Workday; *Amy Davine Kim*, Chief Policy Officer, Chamber of Digital Commerce; *Dr. James Shook*, Mathematician, Computer Security Division, NIST. Moderator: *Lydia Beyoud*, Reporter Bloomberg Law. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsocietyblockchainic * *VIEW ON NETCAUCUSAC PERISCOPE: https://www.pscp.tv/NetCaucusAC/ * *TWITTER: #BlockchainIC @NetCaucusAC* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11563/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Dec 5 14:48:38 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:48:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. Best Sheetal On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: > thanks for this effort Ayden > > But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it > will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, > at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set > PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the > existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more > satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? > > parminder > On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. > Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank > you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just > a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale > altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on > this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach > here. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > *To:* *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played > an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial > exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at > times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a > proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy > and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* > > *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, > and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to > Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding > safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a > sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to > incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos > Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is > not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding > certification. * > > *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being > governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as > a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does > proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of > mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this > sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the > publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual > reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to > consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are > being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and > commitments it is making today.* > > > > *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital > is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their > motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the > non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the > future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, > websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are > more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear Ayden, all, > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on > anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be > rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent > suggestions and remarks. > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting > up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to > ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding > the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request > that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital?* > > *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust > among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who > play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* > > > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I >> believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the >> ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - >> and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these >> questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that >> there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. >> And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did >> before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it >> has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon < >> james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote: >> >> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>  >> Dear all, >> >> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a >> series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I >> discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of >> this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due >> diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to >> request they consider and answer certain questions. >> >> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the >> questions. See below: >> >> *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these >> questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital* >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>> >>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >>>> *eliminated* by their >>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>> > >>>> > Why ? >>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >>>> world is under >>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >>>> registrations they are >>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>> >>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler >>>> construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but >>>> please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody >>>> is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>> >>> >>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>> >>> Shalom, >>> --sb. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -Bill >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards ! >>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >>> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >>> Subscribe to Mailing List : < >>> https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> >>> __ >>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit >>> avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >>> soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Thu Dec 5 14:54:13 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:54:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Dec 5 15:00:42 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 20:00:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Judith, Thanks for your question. Here's an example of a human rights concern that I see with the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital: Firstly, it has been [acknowledged](https://www.keypointsabout.org/) that Fadi Chehade’s company, Chehade & Company, is an adviser to Ethos Capital. [The Register hasreported](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/) that Mr Chehade himself was seen at PIR's office last week during a meet-and-greet with PIR's staff. Mr Chehade is [co-chair of the advisory committee](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/ex_icann_ceo_will_work_with_china/) to the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, and has other business dealings in China. Could .ORG registrants in China be assured, once Ethos Capital takes ownership of PIR, that if the Chinese government requested the contact information of a .ORG registrant, that Mr Chehade would not instruct Ethos Capital to do as the Chinese government wishes? I think this is an area of divergence where a PIR under ISOC's management may behave differently to a PIR owned by a company whose advisor has strong business interests in China. It's a theoretical example and I want to be careful about 'guilt by association', but I think there is a real risk here that a venture capital company is not going to care so much about the interests of their customers as a non-profit might. (Mind you, ISOC has not demonstrated much concern for them lately either, but that's a different issue...) Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, 5 December 2019 20:54, Judith Hellerstein wrote: > HI Sheetal and Aiden > > While I agree with points 1 and 4 I do not understand what are the implications on human rights and not sure I agree with this statement. I also definitely do not agree with point 4 > > - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. > > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 > E-mail: > Judith at jhellerstein.com > Website: > www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: > www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > On 12/5/2019 8:48 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From judith at jhellerstein.com Thu Dec 5 15:03:44 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:03:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <970f5938-d86f-c4ab-8cc1-79bfa60b1e4d@jhellerstein.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 5 15:13:06 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 20:13:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sheetal Kumar" To: "parminder" Cc: "governance" Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, > >First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I >appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly >present in the IGC. > >I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. >This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its >helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more >information to be able to weigh in. > >To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we >need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. > >Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on >these points that would be helpful. > >There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the >saleThere are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes >through (need to list/clearly enumerate these)As a result, many members >of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and >the call for an outright halt to the sale. At a minimum, all IGC >members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the >terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are >appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, >and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day > >It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky >issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to >go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. > >I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone >has alternative ideas please let us know. > >Best >Sheetal > >On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder >wrote: >>thanks for this effort Ayden >> >>But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it >>will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, >>well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask >>Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly >>not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is >>itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the >>sale? >> >>parminder >> >>On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>Dear all, >>> >>>I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. >>>Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point >>>(thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. >>>This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to >>>pieces. >>> >>>Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale >>>altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of >>>posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a >>>different approach here. >>> >>>Thanks and best wishes, >>>Ayden Férdeline >>> >>>To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >>>Society >>> >>> >>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by >>>the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the >>>Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), >>>including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>> >>> >>>Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private >>>entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>>ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining >>>non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a >>>counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, >>>and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level >>>domains are run by private companies with purely financial >>>objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times >>>overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >>>significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, >>>could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >>>and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave >>>ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role >>>in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over >>>PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>> >>> >>>This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >>>community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate >>>safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You >>>have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this >>>deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in >>>place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we >>>ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a >>>benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they >>>are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same >>>thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >>>certification. >>> >>> >>>Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being >>>governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members >>>are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, >>>incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path >>>forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be >>>an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we >>>can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the >>>right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, >>>credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social >>>impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider >>>benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being >>>made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and >>>commitments it is making today. >>> >>> >>> >>>We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos >>>Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information >>>about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to >>>investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require >>>assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names >>>that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising >>>efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are >>>symbols of our desire to do good. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Dear Ayden, all, >>>> >>>>Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to >>>>agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree >>>>needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of >>>>the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>> >>>>What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about >>>>setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending >>>>this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>> >>>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency >>>>regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of >>>>.org, we request that these questions are considered in the due >>>>diligence process: >>>> >>>>- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >>>>millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights >>>>of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the >>>>sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the >>>>public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil >>>>society groups in the world? >>>>- What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged >>>>in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >>>>possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to >>>>Ethos capital? >>>> >>>>We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building >>>>trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally >>>>and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >>>>wrote: >>>>>While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I >>>>>believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect >>>>>that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they >>>>>could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both >>>>>parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them >>>>>seriously. >>>>> >>>>>ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception >>>>>that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and >>>>>other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due >>>>>diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, >>>>>and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, >>>>>.NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board >>>>>>>with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? >>>>>>>Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are >>>>>>>wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet >>>>>>>and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we >>>>>>>thought it might be a constructive approach to request they >>>>>>>consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the >>>>>>>questions. See below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these >>>>>>>questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the >>>>>>>existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing >>>>>>>rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to >>>>>>>ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >>>>>>>behalf of the public interest and the world community of >>>>>>>noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>- What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations >>>>>>>engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >>>>>>>possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to >>>>>>>Ethos capital >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Best >>>>>>>Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit >>>>>>>>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note >>>>>>>>>that the >>>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about >>>>>>>>>to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the >>>>>>>>>non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in >>>>>>>>>.ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler >>>>>>>>>construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as >>>>>>>>>you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly >>>>>>>>>one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a >>>>>>>>>constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Shalom, >>>>>>>>--sb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>__ >>>>>>>>#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ >>>>>>>>soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >>>>>>>>soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>List help: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>--- >>>To unsubscribe: >>>List help: >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: > > >-- > > >Sheetal Kumar >Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Dec 1 16:00:26 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 16:00:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 Thanks, Brett! 2019-12-01 15:57 UTC−05:00, Brett Solomon : > Hi, > > I would strongly encourage IGC considers a "stop the sale" approach. Or as > an alternative, an approach which demands ISOC's full transparency > (including 1. releasing all board and other documentation on the sale and > 2. answers to the range of questions listed above), BEFORE any further > steps are taken to conclude the proposed sale. > > My own preference is to be firm, with a statement to 'stop the sale' and at > the same time demand full transparency of ISOC that lead them to this > point. Demanding both, to my mind, is the appropriate thing to do at this > juncture. > > I think it's also important that we recognize that the sale *has not yet > happened*, that ISOC can reverse the decision as requested by its Dutch > Chapter > (and > now supported by the Swiss Chapter), the transaction will not conclude > until the first quarter of next year > > at > the earliest as ISOC indicated, and that ICANN can terminate any agreement > under > Article 7.5 of the Registry Agreement. Therefore due diligence questions > should also be sent to ICANN ahead of any approvals and BEFORE ISOC > proceeds any further with the sale. > > Thanks to all those who have been working on these issues for some time! > > Brett > > PS Here are the notes > > from the Public Town Hall at the IGF on Thursday, Access Now's call > for stopping > the sale > , > Tim > Berners Lee's tweet calling the proposed sale a 'travesty > ' and news > that the Girl Scouts have > called for the sale to be stopped. > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express > , our weekly newsletter on > digital rights > **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now > with a donation today > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:59 PM Imran Ahmed Shah > > wrote: > >> Dear(s) Sheetal and All >> >> Thanks for summarizing the question to be submitted, I would like to add >> few comments: >> >> 1. Although transparency has been a basic requirement for non-commercial >> organizations in public interest, however, only questioning about >> transparency could help in solving the puzzle (what, why, how) but does >> not >> solve the matter of selling non-commercial entity to the commercial one. >> If >> the ISoc BoT takes a decision on transparency by opening the deal of >> selling it, how it will solve the issue. Actually, ISOC sold PIR, while >> every one is discussing the registry .Org managed by PIR. dot ORG Registry >> encapsulated >> with in this sale of PIR. I suggest we have to address the matter >> differently. >> >> 2. There had been suggestions from few of the friends for ensuring the >> Price-cap >> regulation, how a commercial entity will accept it, or how long >> non-commercial entity will remain under bindings? How they can leave the >> competitive market and open competition aside? >> >> 3. By the way, current market price of .org domain name is already double >> of the price of .com, why? has CS taken any action? and why not half >> instead of double? >> >> 4. Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, >> "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital >> presence of work for good reasons". >> >> Here, I would like to quote a practical example of the ISOC Pakistan >> chapter. >> "ISOC Pakistan chapter blog (its digital presence) was established on >> Ning >> (initially free platform), it has been active for years and community >> members were engaged for IG related discussion (taking advantage of >> blog). >> At a stage, Ning suddenly applied few $ fee, in a result the blog was >> disabled and chapter has no membership records, ISoc removed chapter's >> membership and finally it is disappeared. >> >> 5. ISOC was getting millions from PIR, why it is being sold? >> >> 6. In my point of view, .org should remain under the stewardship, >> control/, administered by non-commercial entities and should have to be >> operated by not for profit entities. >> >> 7. I am afraid of this kind of practice, "the encapsulated sale of TLD's >> Registry". Think.... if the same practice is exercised by the other >> "Public >> Interest and community related" s/g/TLD's Registry Owners.... In 2009, I >> have said in ICANN;s Public Forum (Seoul Meeting) that their action will >> be >> starting a big Gambling Game. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> Consultant/ Advisor >> TLDians.Org >> Urdu Internet Council >> >> On Sunday, 1 December 2019, 21:44:39 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar < >> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Ayden, all, >> >> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on >> anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be >> rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent >> suggestions and remarks. >> >> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting >> up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to >> ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >> >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding >> the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request >> that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants?- After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world?- What are ICANN's obligation to >> protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital?* >> >> >> *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust >> among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those >> who >> play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >> wrote: >> >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I >> believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the >> ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should >> - >> and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these >> questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that >> there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other >> deals. >> And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did >> before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it >> has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >> >> wrote: >> >> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>  >> Dear all, >> >> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a >> series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I >> discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think >> of >> this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a >> due >> diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to >> request they consider and answer certain questions. >> >> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the >> questions. See below: >> >> *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these >> questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital* >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> >> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >> *eliminated* by their >> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >> > >> > Why ? >> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >> world is under >> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >> registrations they are >> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >> >> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try >> to >> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to >> be >> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >> >> >> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards ! >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >> Subscribe to Mailing List : < >> https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> >> __ >> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire >> après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From judith at jhellerstein.com Thu Dec 5 15:13:55 2019 From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 15:13:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Dec 5 15:19:23 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 20:19:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Judith, Happy to stand corrected if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that is the case. Firstly, such a policy applies only to whether or not ICANN org can force the disclose of personal information. Contracted parties have and maintain client data — not just Whois data, but billing data too. As data controllers they absolutely do retain this information and as best I am aware there is nothing that would prevent them from voluntarily releasing it. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 21:13, Judith Hellerstein wrote: > HI Ayden, > > Thanks for the explanation but I do not think this is likely. I think it would violate the new who is policy > > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 > E-mail: > Judith at jhellerstein.com > Website: > www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: > www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > On 12/5/2019 9:00 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Hi Judith, >> >> Thanks for your question. Here's an example of a human rights concern that I see with the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital: >> >> Firstly, it has been [acknowledged](https://www.keypointsabout.org/) that Fadi Chehade’s company, Chehade & Company, is an adviser to Ethos Capital. >> >> [The Register hasreported](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/) that Mr Chehade himself was seen at PIR's office last week during a meet-and-greet with PIR's staff. >> >> Mr Chehade is [co-chair of the advisory committee](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/ex_icann_ceo_will_work_with_china/) to the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, and has other business dealings in China. >> >> Could .ORG registrants in China be assured, once Ethos Capital takes ownership of PIR, that if the Chinese government requested the contact information of a .ORG registrant, that Mr Chehade would not instruct Ethos Capital to do as the Chinese government wishes? >> >> I think this is an area of divergence where a PIR under ISOC's management may behave differently to a PIR owned by a company whose advisor has strong business interests in China. It's a theoretical example and I want to be careful about 'guilt by association', but I think there is a real risk here that a venture capital company is not going to care so much about the interests of their customers as a non-profit might. (Mind you, ISOC has not demonstrated much concern for them lately either, but that's a different issue...) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Thursday, 5 December 2019 20:54, Judith Hellerstein [](mailto:judith at jhellerstein.com) wrote: >> >>> HI Sheetal and Aiden >>> >>> While I agree with points 1 and 4 I do not understand what are the implications on human rights and not sure I agree with this statement. I also definitely do not agree with point 4 >>> >>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>> >>> Judith >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________________ >>> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >>> Hellerstein & Associates >>> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >>> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >>> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >>> E-mail: >>> Judith at jhellerstein.com >>> Website: >>> www.jhellerstein.com >>> Linked In: >>> www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >>> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >>> >>> On 12/5/2019 8:48 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >> List help: >> [](https://riseup.net/lists) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Thu Dec 5 15:30:26 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 5 Dec 2019 15:30:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191205203026.EA7FD1025EEE@ary.qy> In article you write: >Could .ORG registrants in China be assured, once Ethos Capital takes ownership of PIR, that if the >Chinese government requested the contact information of a .ORG registrant, that Mr Chehade would >not instruct Ethos Capital to do as the Chinese government wishes? Disclosing registrant information would be a violation of section 2.18 of the registry agreement and grounds for ICANN to revoke the contract. Why would they take that risk? Also, Ethos says Fadi is an advisor, not the owner. It's hard to imagine why they would take instructions from him. R's, John From ayden at ferdeline.com Thu Dec 5 16:00:48 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 21:00:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <20191205203026.EA7FD1025EEE@ary.qy> References: <20191205203026.EA7FD1025EEE@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi John, Respectfully, if you are commenting on this issue (which is a statement addressed to the ISOC Board), I think you should make it clear that you are a current member of the ISOC Board. And ICANN policy does not supersede national law vis-a-vis requests say, for, law enforcement data. If the Chinese government requests the billing data for a registrant who is a Hong Kong dissident, which is data collected by PIR but not even subject to the registry agreement, would Ethos challenge the Chinese government’s request? Regards, Ayden On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 21:30, John Levine wrote: > In article you write: >>Could .ORG registrants in China be assured, once Ethos Capital takes ownership of PIR, that if the >>Chinese government requested the contact information of a .ORG registrant, that Mr Chehade would >>not instruct Ethos Capital to do as the Chinese government wishes? > > Disclosing registrant information would be a violation of section 2.18 > of the registry agreement and grounds for ICANN to revoke the > contract. Why would they take that risk? > > Also, Ethos says Fadi is an advisor, not the owner. It's hard to > imagine why they would take instructions from him. > > R's, > John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Thu Dec 5 17:08:28 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 5 Dec 2019 17:08:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191205220829.13B5110275C6@ary.qy> In article you write: >And ICANN policy does not supersede national law vis-a-vis requests say, for, law enforcement data. >If the Chinese government requests the billing data for a registrant who is a Hong Kong dissident, >which is data collected by PIR but not even subject to the registry agreement, would Ethos >challenge the Chinese government’s request? Registries such as PIR have no registrant billing data. The registrant pays the registrar, not the registry. In many cases there are even more levels, where the registrant pays a reseller who pays the registrar who pays the registry. As far as I can tell, all the info that the registry does have is covered by section 2.18 of the agreement which forbids disclosing it outside of the purposes for which it was collected. Of course, PIR is in the US and is subject to US law, not Chinese law. R's, John From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Dec 5 22:40:22 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:40:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <4B959905-3A0A-4221-B530-0164409D40C7@pch.net> References: <4B959905-3A0A-4221-B530-0164409D40C7@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Le mer. 4 déc. 2019 2:06 PM, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > Two suggestions: > > I wouldn’t say that getting out of the gTLD-selling business weakens or > delegitimization ISOC. On the contrary, it disentangles them from a huge > distraction from their mission, and gives them an endowment which secured > their future. That’s the first thing in their minds, so I’d acknowledge > that. > > Second, I think it’s worth referencing the principles of the 2002 > transfer, which were that .ORG was to be both BY and FOR non-profits. > Dear Bill, Please can you elaborate, or just point to the criterion [1] which served you to affirm that ? Thanks. __ [1]: from Shalom, --sb. Not that non-profits were grist for a for-profit mill. > > -Bill > > > On Dec 4, 2019, at 08:32, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > [...] > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Dec 6 07:17:31 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sheetal, I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. Few comments: I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case...We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC....  Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board...  I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =  To: Gonzalo Camarillo,Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a networkwhich encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interesttechnologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital isacquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the InternetSociety (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.   Principally, we areconcerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter theDomain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the onlyremaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as acounterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONGfor the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run byprivate companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests ofcompanies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when thisoccurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary ofISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, andhas a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacyand influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internetinfrastructure [IAS:suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its controlover PIR, ISOC loses its ability to directly impact how millions of peoplearound the world positively experience the Internet every day, and we thinkthat is a great pity. This is a significantchange, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfiedthat there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of.ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites everyday. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call thisdeal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble requestor perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanksfor your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the takethe deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the dealor what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific resultthat we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capitalcommit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them toproceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws andcommitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protectedas a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor“Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entityhow we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capitalhas said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the samething as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should useit as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interestentity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘theBoard’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decisionmaker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercializedby the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] Largeparts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have touse other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIRrepresentative has responded like this “the objections are not reported fromthe majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern whois running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely bycommercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate“the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG]aredeeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as abenefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceedto sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigatingagainst some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. Abenefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication ofcomprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on socialimpact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits tothe public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it wouldoblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that youunderstand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, andin the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIRand their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmentalcommunities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONGdomain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraisingefforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is notbeing compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors(right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partnercommercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desireto do good. = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =   [IAS: Ialso have few more concerns: 1.      Needs transparency and disclosure ofthe followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): i.                    the reasoning behind the selling PIR‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, ii.                  the reasoning behind the avoidanceof engaging a proper bidding?, iii.                 the reasoning to giving sole powerof decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition andopening comments to sell or not?, iv.                the information of intention disclosureregarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, whenit came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post salesagreement). v.                  Technical Terms and basis of the TechnicalEvaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. vi.                Safeguards evaluated in terms ofPublic Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated beforemaking the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)   2.      I would suggest that the statementshould be in the following format: Preamble/Preface paragraph: Objection/Obligation/Concerns What we demand: Our First Requirement is: Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure ofdeal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) Our Second Requirement is: A.     The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligenceprocess and stop the deal. If the efforts for A areconvincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving requiredgoal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. B.     What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment a.      Immediate commitment (prior to sale), b.     long term commitment (after sales), (by the way I am notconvinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interestfor long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any othercommercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements withISOC stands?)  = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. Ian ------ Original Message ------From: "Sheetal Kumar" To: "parminder" Cc: "governance" Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AMSubject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. BestSheetal On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: thanks for this effort Ayden But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? parminder On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. Thanks and best wishes, Ayden Férdeline To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.   Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification.  Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today.   We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear Ayden, all, Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote:  Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses.  Please try again, with simpler construction.  You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb.                                   -Bill -- -- Best Regards !                          baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Dec 6 12:22:47 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:22:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Open Internet & 5G: A Challenge to Net Neutrality @ ISOC Serbia Message-ID: First stream out of ISOC Serbia! Congrats! Will start in a mo. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday December 5 2019 at 12pm EST (17:00 UTC) the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy hosts a panel "Blockchain Is Revolutionizing Your Digital Identity And Government Can Lead The Way" at Rayburn House in Washington DC. Blockchain technology is m" [image: livestream] On *December 6 2019* at *6pm CET* (17:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Serbia Belgrade Chapter *is organizing a panel event in Belgrade with the theme *Open Internet & 5G: A Challenge to Net Neutrality *. 5G networks will radicalize many aspects of society such as health care, transport, public safety – just to mention a few. As this next generation of wireless service integrates into everyday life, there is an apparent conflict between 5G and net neutrality. New applications will depend on unprecedented levels of connectivity in terms of latency, bandwidth, and reliability. This can be achieved by techniques such as “slicing” the network according to the needs at hand. Yet, net neutrality relies on the view that “all bits are created equal”, that is to say, Internet Service Providers must treat all of the traffic equally. How then can 5G providers conform with net neutrality principles and regulations? Our panel of experts will take a close look at this and other related questions. VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/5Gneutrality SPEAKERS *Thomas Lohninger* – epicenter.works *Maja Mitić* – Serbian Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications (RATEL) *Slobodan Markovi*ć – United Nations Development Program (UNDP) *Bojan Kovačević* – Vip mobile a member of the Telekom Austria Group Moderator: *Aranđel Bojanović*, Internet Society Serbia Belgrade Chapter TWITTER: #5GNeutrality #NetNeutrality #5G #isocserbia *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11573/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Fri Dec 6 13:33:53 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:33:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Sheetal for trying to coral us into agreement. I appreciate the work done on the draft letter and I am also keen to get it out. I think our best bet is to keep things short, simple - and to the point. The conference call yesterday only strengthened our resolve against the proposed deal, as the key actors offered little beyond platitudes and soothing promises to look into our questions at some further date. It also reinforced the inside nature of the agreement between a group of (largely) men who are working on this billion dollar plus sale. The urgency and opposition that is felt among many in the community will not be met with ideas like well-intentioned Bcorps and the like. We need to be thinking about the future of .ORG in 2025 and what this proposed sale will enable once PIR is onsold to the next highest bidder. To your four points: - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale AGREED - all ISOC deliberations and materials concerning the sale, including other bids, should be made immediately public. Nothing should proceed without this information. - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) AGREED - I think we should definitely reference the human rights implications of a public interest registry transferring to a for-profit venture capital firm. The knock-on effects of having to pay up or abandon our digital domiciles, in addition to the potential privacy and data protection, freedom of expression, and freedom of association impacts, merit further consideration and inquiry. It would be remiss not to mention this. - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. AGREED - from all evidence on this list, on Twitter, from the over ten of thousand + signatories to the EFF/NTEN letter, our in-person events, etc. we believe this is an accurate representation. I am not sure that anyone on this list (or elsewhere) thinks this sale should go ahead in its current form, or in the absence of further information. - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day DISAGREE - At this stage we should not be asking for a tinkerings to a faulty and problematic deal, by offering protections to the nature of the agreement. Being permissive and giving a green light to a sale of the non-commercial part of the internet that is essentially a non-transparent insider negotiation offends our values and principles, and I think that civil society should hold a strong line. With potential legal fights and political oversight yet to come, let’s call for a halt to the sale and for immediate transparency of process, and leave it there for now. Thanks so much again - and happy to help with a new draft version. Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:17 AM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Sheetal, > > I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. > > I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft > of Ayden and copying hereunder. > > Few comments: > I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in > any case... > We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. > Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the > ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to > support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough > benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so > that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, > credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to > over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit > next one after ISOC.... > > Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand > of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able > to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in > some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional > support board... > > I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points > shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played > an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial > exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at > times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a > proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy > and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure **[IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest > Intact”]**. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* > > *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, > and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to > Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding > safeguards cannot be put in place**.* *[IAS: it very polite, humble > request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple > answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at > this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair > in 2009]** We encourage you to do just that.** [IAS: What to do, to stop > the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be > specific result that we are recommending or demanding] **As a sign of > good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR > as a benefit corporation. **[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed > with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and > commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity > protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding > that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in > B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he > has investing billions..] **We understand that Ethos Capital has said > they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing > as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. **[IAS: > I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention > to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. > In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was > in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this > faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new > investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?]* > > *Large parts of the world* *[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use > other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR > representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported > from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no > concern who is running the registry”]** are uncomfortable with the > Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our > members **[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g > IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] **are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as > a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does > proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be **[IAS: I suggest > rephrase “Could have been assured”] **an effective means of mitigating > against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A > benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication > of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on > social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider > benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. > And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it > is making today.* > > *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital > is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their > motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the > non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the > future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, > websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. **[IAS: I > suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, > shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors > (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner > commercial/ noncommercial entities”] **These are more than just domains, > they are symbols of our desire to do good.* > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > *[IAS: I also have few more concerns:* > > *1. **Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to > re-establish of the trust being shacked):* > > *i. **the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of > the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, * > > *ii. **the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a > proper bidding?,* > > *iii. **the reasoning to giving sole power of decision > of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening > comments to sell or not?,* > > *iv. **the information of intention disclosure regarding > the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it > came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales > agreement).* > > *v. **Technical Terms and basis of the Technical > Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, > Dependability.* > > *vi. **Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, > Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the > decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)* > > > > *2. **I would suggest that the statement should be in the following > format:* > > Preamble/Preface paragraph: > > Objection/Obligation/Concerns > > What we demand: > > Our First Requirement is: > > Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ > agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural > design/basis/planning) > > Our Second Requirement is: > > A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due > diligence process and stop the deal. > > If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but > could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal > goal-B after the adoption of above…. > > B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the > commitment > > a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), > > b. long term commitment (after sales), > > *(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains > commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments > one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos > Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its > status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)* > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > = = > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] > > On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > > > I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human > rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the > strong basic argument. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sheetal Kumar" > To: "parminder" > Cc: "governance" > Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > > Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, > > First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate > the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the > IGC. > > I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. > This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its > helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more > information to be able to weigh in. > > To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need > to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. > > Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these > points that would be helpful. > > > - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale > - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes > through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the > statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the > sale. > - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater > transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, > and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests > of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites > every day > > > It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky > issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go > with what we can all agree on at a top-level. > > I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has > alternative ideas please let us know. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: > > thanks for this effort Ayden > > But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it > will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, > at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set > PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the > existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more > satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? > > parminder > On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. > Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank > you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just > a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale > altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on > this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach > here. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > *To:* *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played > an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial > exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at > times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a > proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy > and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* > > *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, > and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to > Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding > safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a > sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to > incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos > Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is > not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding > certification. * > > *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being > governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as > a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does > proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of > mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this > sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the > publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual > reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to > consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are > being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and > commitments it is making today.* > > > > *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital > is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their > motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the > non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the > future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, > websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are > more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear Ayden, all, > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on > anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be > rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent > suggestions and remarks. > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting > up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to > ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding > the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request > that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital?* > > *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust > among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who > play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* > > > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I > believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the > ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - > and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these > questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. > > ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that > there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. > And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did > before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it > has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon > wrote: > > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of > this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due > diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to > request they consider and answer certain questions. > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the > questions. See below: > > *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital* > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be > *eliminated* by their > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > Why ? > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] > world is under > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG > registrations they are > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. > You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to > make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be > able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > > -Bill > > > > -- > > > -- > Best Regards ! > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < > https://survey.cmnog.cm> > Subscribe to Mailing List : < > https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec > vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > -- > > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 6 13:47:01 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 18:47:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] EFF article on human rights / private ordering concerns re: .ORG sale Message-ID: Dear all, EFF has published a piece today that outlines quite concretely some private ordering concerns and human rights implications associated with the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship-halting-private-equity-buy-out Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sun Dec 1 16:32:17 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:32:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell References: <3C2D73BD-DC44-4D6B-BB11-C1156CB2618E@pch.net> Message-ID: <14D54F7D-45D7-4314-8994-290E4F282A2B@pch.net> Forwarded from another list: From: Bill Woodcock > Date: December 1, 2019 at 10:01:19 PM GMT+1 Since I haven’t seen anyone else actually post this analysis yet, here goes: Ethos’ offered purchase price is $1.135B. At that price, if they exercise the maximum 10% annual wholesale price increase, .ORG domains wind up at $26/year at the end of the ten-year period. If Ethos pays the actual cost of registry and DNS services, without the subsidies ISOC currently receives, but continues at the same level of quality, they’d make a total of $318M in profit over the ten years, or 8.59% annualized return. If they cut spending to the bone, using the crappiest available registry and DNS services and not caring how much downtime they had, they could increase their profit to $598M, or 9.71% annualized return. If they were to do a single 10% increase, at the beginning of the first year, they’d lose $355M if they maintained current service levels, or $55M if they axed spending. If they maintained current prices, they’d lose $435M or $155M. Private equity doesn’t plan to lose money. Therefore the suggestions from the public that the deal be allowed to proceed “if they agree not to raise prices” or “if they only raise prices 10%” simply won’t happen. The other implication of this is that if a non-profit were to buy from ISOC and maintain current prices, putting all available money toward ISOC and keeping nothing for themselves, they could only offer $700M, and that would be at the rate of $70M per year, “seller financed” at no interest. ISOC is currently chewing up $45M/year, but once they’re no longer dependent on .ORG, they could drop a significant chunk of their spending that’s going toward maintaining those interests. Let’s say that they could drop their spending to $30M. That would leave $40M in excess profits each year going toward an endowment: At the end of the ten-year period, the endowment would stand at $626M, and interest from the endowment would be $50M/year. Which is more than they’re receiving right now. If they continued to just draw $30M/year, the endowment would continue to grow by $20M/year, making it safer and safer over time. So, I don’t think it works to ask Ethos to not raise prices, but (putting aside the fact that they’ve already signed an agreement with Ethos, which ICANN or the State of Pennsylvania would have to stop) ISOC could certainly do well (not _as_ well, but much better than they’re doing right now) and be completely out of the domain name business, while giving .ORG registrants a guarantee of no price increases, and having .ORG become fully non-profit, rather than the odd non-profit/for-profit hybrid it is right now. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-6.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 93442 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 56472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Dec 6 14:33:02 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:33:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BB5D4E8-CF37-4CEC-A021-3A9961F05C03@pch.net> I agree with Brett, there’s no reason to lead with a compromise. -Bill > On Dec 6, 2019, at 14:35, Brett Solomon wrote: > >  > Thanks Sheetal for trying to coral us into agreement. I appreciate the work done on the draft letter and I am also keen to get it out. I think our best bet is to keep things short, simple - and to the point. The conference call yesterday only strengthened our resolve against the proposed deal, as the key actors offered little beyond platitudes and soothing promises to look into our questions at some further date. It also reinforced the inside nature of the agreement between a group of (largely) men who are working on this billion dollar plus sale. > > The urgency and opposition that is felt among many in the community will not be met with ideas like well-intentioned Bcorps and the like. We need to be thinking about the future of .ORG in 2025 and what this proposed sale will enable once PIR is onsold to the next highest bidder. > > To your four points: > There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale > > AGREED - all ISOC deliberations and materials concerning the sale, including other bids, should be made immediately public. Nothing should proceed without this information. > There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > > AGREED - I think we should definitely reference the human rights implications of a public interest registry transferring to a for-profit venture capital firm. The knock-on effects of having to pay up or abandon our digital domiciles, in addition to the potential privacy and data protection, freedom of expression, and freedom of association impacts, merit further consideration and inquiry. It would be remiss not to mention this. > As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. > > AGREED - from all evidence on this list, on Twitter, from the over ten of thousand + signatories to the EFF/NTEN letter, our in-person events, etc. we believe this is an accurate representation. I am not sure that anyone on this list (or elsewhere) thinks this sale should go ahead in its current form, or in the absence of further information. > At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day > > DISAGREE - At this stage we should not be asking for a tinkerings to a faulty and problematic deal, by offering protections to the nature of the agreement. Being permissive and giving a green light to a sale of the non-commercial part of the internet that is essentially a non-transparent insider negotiation offends our values and principles, and I think that civil society should hold a strong line. With potential legal fights and political oversight yet to come, let’s call for a halt to the sale and for immediate transparency of process, and leave it there for now. > > Thanks so much again - and happy to help with a new draft version. > > Brett > > Brett Solomon > Executive Director > Access Now | accessnow.org > > @solomonbrett > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > *Subscribe to the Access Now Express, our weekly newsletter on digital rights > *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now with a donation today > > >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:17 AM Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> Dear Sheetal, >> >> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >> >> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >> >> Few comments: >> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >> >> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >> >> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >> Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >> >> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >> >> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >> >> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >> >> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >> >> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >> >> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >> >> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >> >> >> >> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >> >> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >> >> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >> >> What we demand: >> >> Our First Requirement is: >> >> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >> >> Our Second Requirement is: >> >> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >> >> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >> >> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >> >> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >> >> b. long term commitment (after sales), >> >> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >> >> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >> To: "parminder" >> Cc: "governance" >> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >> >>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>> >>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>> >>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>> >>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>> >>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>> >>> There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>> There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>> As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>> At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>> >>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>> >>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>> >>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> >>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>> >>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>> >>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>> >>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>> >>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>> >>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>> >>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>> >>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>> >>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>> >>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>> __ >>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Fri Dec 6 14:47:09 2019 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:47:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] EFF article on human rights / private ordering concerns re: .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is an excellent piece, Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access Now | accessnow.org @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB **Subscribe* to the Access Now Express , our weekly newsletter on digital rights **Protect digital rights* around the world - support Access Now with a donation today On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:47 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Dear all, > > EFF has published a piece today that outlines quite concretely some > private ordering concerns and human rights implications associated with the > proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital: > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship-halting-private-equity-buy-out > > Best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Fri Dec 6 15:29:57 2019 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 21:29:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <1BB5D4E8-CF37-4CEC-A021-3A9961F05C03@pch.net> References: <1BB5D4E8-CF37-4CEC-A021-3A9961F05C03@pch.net> Message-ID: <1122921688.418587.1575664198411@webmail.nominalia.com> +1. The sale should be cancelled. One cannot sell that which does not belong to you. CW > El 6 de diciembre de 2019 a las 20:33 Bill Woodcock escribió: > > I agree with Brett, there’s no reason to lead with a compromise. > > > -Bill > > > > > > On Dec 6, 2019, at 14:35, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sheetal for trying to coral us into agreement. I appreciate the work done on the draft letter and I am also keen to get it out. I think our best bet is to keep things short, simple - and to the point. The conference call yesterday only strengthened our resolve against the proposed deal, as the key actors offered little beyond platitudes and soothing promises to look into our questions at some further date. It also reinforced the inside nature of the agreement between a group of (largely) men who are working on this billion dollar plus sale. > > > > The urgency and opposition that is felt among many in the community will not be met with ideas like well-intentioned Bcorps and the like. We need to be thinking about the future of .ORG in 2025 and what this proposed sale will enable once PIR is onsold to the next highest bidder. > > > > To your four points: > > * There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale > > > > AGREED - all ISOC deliberations and materials concerning the sale, including other bids, should be made immediately public. Nothing should proceed without this information. > > * There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > > > > AGREED - I think we should definitely reference the human rights implications of a public interest registry transferring to a for-profit venture capital firm. The knock-on effects of having to pay up or abandon our digital domiciles, in addition to the potential privacy and data protection, freedom of expression, and freedom of association impacts, merit further consideration and inquiry. It would be remiss not to mention this. > > * As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. > > > > AGREED - from all evidence on this list, on Twitter, from the over ten of thousand + signatories to the EFF/NTEN letter, our in-person events, etc. we believe this is an accurate representation. I am not sure that anyone on this list (or elsewhere) thinks this sale should go ahead in its current form, or in the absence of further information. > > * At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day > > > > DISAGREE - At this stage we should not be asking for a tinkerings to a faulty and problematic deal, by offering protections to the nature of the agreement. Being permissive and giving a green light to a sale of the non-commercial part of the internet that is essentially a non-transparent insider negotiation offends our values and principles, and I think that civil society should hold a strong line. With potential legal fights and political oversight yet to come, let’s call for a halt to the sale and for immediate transparency of process, and leave it there for now. > > > > Thanks so much again - and happy to help with a new draft version. > > > > Brett > > > > Brett Solomon > > Executive Director > > Access Now | accessnow.org https://accessnow.org > > > > @solomonbrett > > Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB > > Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB > > > > * Subscribe to the Access Now Express https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up , our weekly newsletter on digital rights > > * Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1 with a donation today > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:17 AM Imran Ahmed Shah < governance at lists.riseup.net mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sheetal, > > > > > > I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. > > > > > > I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. > > > > > > Few comments: > > > I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... > > > We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. > > > Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... > > > > > > Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... > > > > > > I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep > > > > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > > > > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. > > > > > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. > > > > > > This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] > > > > > > Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. > > > > > > We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > > > > [IAS: I also have few more concerns: > > > > > > 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): > > > > > > i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, > > > > > > ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, > > > > > > iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, > > > > > > iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). > > > > > > v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. > > > > > > vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: > > > > > > Preamble/Preface paragraph: > > > > > > Objection/Obligation/Concerns > > > > > > What we demand: > > > > > > Our First Requirement is: > > > > > > Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) > > > > > > Our Second Requirement is: > > > > > > A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. > > > > > > If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. > > > > > > B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment > > > > > > a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), > > > > > > b. long term commitment (after sales), > > > > > > (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) > > > > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > > > [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] > > > > > > On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > > From: "Sheetal Kumar" < sheetal at gp-digital.org mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org > > > > To: "parminder" < parminder at itforchange.net mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > > > > Cc: "governance" < governance at lists.riseup.net mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net > > > > Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, > > > > > > > > First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. > > > > > > > > I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. > > > > > > > > To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. > > > > > > > > Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. > > > > > > > > * There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale > > > > * There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > > > > * As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. > > > > * At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day > > > > > > > > It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. > > > > > > > > I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. > > > > > > > > Best > > > > Sheetal > > > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder < parminder at itforchange.net mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for this effort Ayden > > > > > > > > > > But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? > > > > > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > > > > > > > > > > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and best wishes, > > > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > > > > > > > > > > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. > > > > > > > > > > > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. > > > > > > > > > > > > We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Ayden, all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? > > > > > > > - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? > > > > > > > - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" > > > > > > > - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline < ayden at ferdeline.com mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon < james at cyberinvasion.net mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar < sheetal at gp-digital.org mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? > > > > > > > > > > - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? > > > > > > > > > > - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" > > > > > > > > > > - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > > Sheetal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya < governance at lists.riseup.net mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock < woody at pch.net mailto:woody at pch.net > a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > > > > > > > > > > > > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > > > > > > > > > > > > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > > > > > > > > > > > > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shalom, > > > > > > > > > > > --sb. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards ! > > > > > > > > > > > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | > > > > > > > > > > > Subscribe to Mailing List : > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > > > > > > > > > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33 « Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬! » > > > > > > > > > > > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > > > > > > > > > > > «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > > > > > > > List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sheetal Kumar > > > > > > > > > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > > > > > > > > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > > > > > > > > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > > > > > > > > > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > > > > > > List help: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sheetal Kumar > > > > > > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > > > > > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > > > > > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > > > > > > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > > > > > > List help: https://riseup.net/lists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > To unsubscribe: > > > > > List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sheetal Kumar > > > > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > > > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > > > > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> > > > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > > - To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Fri Dec 6 15:47:12 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 20:47:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Sheetal, > > I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. > > I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. > > Few comments: > I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... > We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. > Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... > > Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... > > I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society > > As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. > > Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. > > This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] > > Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. > > We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > [IAS: I also have few more concerns: > > 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): > > i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, > > ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, > > iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, > > iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). > > v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. > > vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) > > 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: > > Preamble/Preface paragraph: > > Objection/Obligation/Concerns > > What we demand: > > Our First Requirement is: > > Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) > > Our Second Requirement is: > > A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. > > If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. > > B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment > > a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), > > b. long term commitment (after sales), > > (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] > > On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: > > I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sheetal Kumar" > To: "parminder" > Cc: "governance" > Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > >> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >> >> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >> >> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >> >> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >> >> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >> >> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >> >> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >> >> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >> >>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>> >>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>> >>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> >>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>> >>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>> >>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>> >>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>> >>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>> >>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar [](mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>> >>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>> >>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>> >>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>> List help: >>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Sat Dec 7 08:12:51 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 13:12:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. Best Sheetal On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. > > It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a > disaster. > > I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its > decision here. > > All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make > indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a > non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. > > They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe > the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the > public interest elements of their charter. > > I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their > comments. > > So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. > > If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor > in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone > but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on > the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place > for registrants. > > PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have > already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. > Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will > be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that > obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating > PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary > duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act > in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. > > The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the > fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a > real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are > being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for > at present. > > If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is > subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances > that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as > fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if > Ethos Capital so desires. > > ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider > what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental > organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening > mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing > unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a > membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. > There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to > address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs > $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else > steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. > > If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little > we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > > Dear Sheetal, > > I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. > > I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft > of Ayden and copying hereunder. > > Few comments: > I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in > any case... > We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. > Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the > ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to > support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough > benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so > that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, > credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to > over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit > next one after ISOC.... > > Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand > of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able > to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in > some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional > support board... > > I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points > shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played > an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial > exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at > times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a > proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy > and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure **[IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest > Intact”]**. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* > > *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, > and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to > Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding > safeguards cannot be put in place**.* *[IAS: it very polite, humble > request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple > answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at > this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair > in 2009]** We encourage you to do just that.** [IAS: What to do, to stop > the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be > specific result that we are recommending or demanding] **As a sign of > good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR > as a benefit corporation. **[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed > with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and > commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity > protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding > that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in > B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he > has investing billions..] **We understand that Ethos Capital has said > they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing > as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. **[IAS: > I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention > to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. > In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was > in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this > faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new > investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?]* > > *Large parts of the world* *[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use > other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR > representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported > from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no > concern who is running the registry”]** are uncomfortable with the > Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our > members **[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g > IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] **are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as > a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does > proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be **[IAS: I suggest > rephrase “Could have been assured”] **an effective means of mitigating > against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A > benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication > of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on > social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider > benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. > And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it > is making today.* > > *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital > is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their > motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the > non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the > future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, > websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. **[IAS: I > suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, > shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors > (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner > commercial/ noncommercial entities”] **These are more than just domains, > they are symbols of our desire to do good.* > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > *[IAS: I also have few more concerns:* > > *1. **Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to > re-establish of the trust being shacked):* > > *i. **the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of > the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,* > > *ii. **the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a > proper bidding?,* > > *iii. **the reasoning to giving sole power of decision > of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening > comments to sell or not?,* > > *iv. **the information of intention disclosure regarding > the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it > came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales > agreement).* > > *v. **Technical Terms and basis of the Technical > Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, > Dependability.* > > *vi. **Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, > Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the > decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)* > > > > *2. **I would suggest that the statement should be in the following > format:* > > Preamble/Preface paragraph: > > Objection/Obligation/Concerns > > What we demand: > > Our First Requirement is: > > Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ > agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural > design/basis/planning) > > Our Second Requirement is: > > A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due > diligence process and stop the deal. > > If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but > could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal > goal-B after the adoption of above…. > > B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the > commitment > > a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), > > b. long term commitment (after sales), > > *(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains > commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments > one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos > Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its > status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)* > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > = = > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] > > On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: > > > I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human > rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the > strong basic argument. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sheetal Kumar" > To: "parminder" > Cc: "governance" > Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale > > Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, > > First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate > the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the > IGC. > > I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. > This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its > helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more > information to be able to weigh in. > > To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need > to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. > > Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these > points that would be helpful. > > > - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale > - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes > through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) > - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the > statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the > sale. > - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater > transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, > and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests > of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites > every day > > > It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky > issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go > with what we can all agree on at a top-level. > > I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has > alternative ideas please let us know. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: > > thanks for this effort Ayden > > But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it > will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, > at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set > PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the > existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more > satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? > > parminder > On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. > Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank > you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just > a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. > > Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale > altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on > this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach > here. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Ayden Férdeline > > *To:* *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet > Society* > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the > announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public > Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the > .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * > > *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity > will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played > an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain > registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial > exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, > whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely > financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at > times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are > significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could > be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a > proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy > and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet > infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* > > *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, > and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place > to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people > who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to > Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding > safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a > sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to > incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos > Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is > not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding > certification. * > > *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being > governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are > deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as > a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does > proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of > mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this > sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the > publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual > reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to > consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are > being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and > commitments it is making today.* > > > > *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital > is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their > motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the > non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the > future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, > websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are > more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Dear Ayden, all, > > Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on > anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be > rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent > suggestions and remarks. > > What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting > up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to > ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? > > > *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial > organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding > the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request > that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital?* > > *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust > among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who > play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* > > > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I > believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the > ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - > and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these > questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. > > ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that > there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. > And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did > before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it > has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > Thanks. > > Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon > wrote: > > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of > this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due > diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to > request they consider and answer certain questions. > > It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the > questions. See below: > > > *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital* > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be > *eliminated* by their > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > Why ? > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] > world is under > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG > registrations they are > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. > You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to > make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be > able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > > -Bill > > > > -- > > > > > -- > Best Regards ! > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < > https://survey.cmnog.cm> > Subscribe to Mailing List : < > https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec > vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > -- > > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sat Dec 7 08:55:54 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 08:55:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Second approach. -Bill > On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. > > Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. > > > Best > Sheetal > >> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >> >> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >> >> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >> >> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >> >> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >> >> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >> >> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >> >> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >> >> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >> >> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >> >> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >> >> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >> >> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear Sheetal, >>> >>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>> >>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>> >>> Few comments: >>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>> >>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>> >>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>> >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> >>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>> Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>> >>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>> >>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>> >>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>> >>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>> >>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>> >>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>> >>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>> >>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>> >>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>> >>> What we demand: >>> >>> Our First Requirement is: >>> >>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>> >>> Our Second Requirement is: >>> >>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>> >>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>> >>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>> >>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>> >>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>> >>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>> >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>> >>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>> To: "parminder" >>> Cc: "governance" >>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>> >>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>> >>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>> >>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>> >>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>> >>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>> >>>> There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>> There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>> As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>> At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>> >>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>> >>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>> >>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>> >>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>> >>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>> >>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>> >>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>> >>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>> >>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>> >>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> > > > -- > > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Sat Dec 7 10:28:26 2019 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:28:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good steps. Great views. The draft statement is super if we address one issue I observe (unless my understanding of it isn't good enough). I think calling for a halt and at the same time seeking greater transparency and appropriate safeguards...to protect the interests of .ORG and so on are not in harmony. We either call for a halt outlining the strong reasons for the call (stopping at that for now, as Brett posited) or we ask the board to assure us of the appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the interests and rights of registrants and their sites users, for the sale to remain. I think this option is makes much sense if, as Ayden observed, the board is unbendable in its wrong action. This stance of the board (confirmed by Sullivan's statements and those of other board members in some press articles) outrightly questions what my (and anyone else's) membership of ISOC means. Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to either continue or denounce membership. > > On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >  > Dear all, > > Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must > ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this > isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches > suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and > asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a > halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. > > Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we > hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. > > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >> >> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a >> disaster. >> >> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its >> decision here. >> >> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make >> indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a >> non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >> >> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe >> the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the >> public interest elements of their charter. >> >> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their >> comments. >> >> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >> >> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor >> in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone >> but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on >> the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place >> for registrants. >> >> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may >> have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to >> happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and >> it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to >> fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of >> operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his >> fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital >> and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >> >> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the >> fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a >> real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are >> being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for >> at present. >> >> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is >> subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances >> that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as >> fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if >> Ethos Capital so desires. >> >> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to >> consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, >> non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is >> not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that >> changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It >> is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent >> trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to >> address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs >> $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else >> steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >> >> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what >> little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to >> accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Sheetal, >> >> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >> >> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft >> of Ayden and copying hereunder. >> >> Few comments: >> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in >> any case... >> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the >> ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to >> support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough >> benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so >> that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, >> credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to >> over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit >> next one after ISOC.... >> >> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the >> hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be >> able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or >> buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some >> kind of notional support board... >> >> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the >> points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the >> announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public >> Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the >> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played >> an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain >> registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial >> exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >> whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely >> financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at >> times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could >> be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a >> proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy >> and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >> infrastructure **[IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest >> Intact”]**. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* >> >> *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, >> and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding >> safeguards cannot be put in place**.* *[IAS: it very polite, humble >> request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple >> answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at >> this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair >> in 2009]** We encourage you to do just that.** [IAS: What to do, to stop >> the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be >> specific result that we are recommending or demanding] **As a sign of >> good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR >> as a benefit corporation. **[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed >> with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and >> commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity >> protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding >> that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in >> B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he >> has investing billions..] **We understand that Ethos Capital has said >> they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing >> as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. **[IAS: >> I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention >> to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. >> In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was >> in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this >> faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new >> investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?]* >> >> *Large parts of the world* *[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use >> other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR >> representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported >> from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no >> concern who is running the registry”]** are uncomfortable with the >> Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our >> members **[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g >> IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] **are >> deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as >> a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does >> proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be **[IAS: I suggest >> rephrase “Could have been assured”] **an effective means of mitigating >> against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A >> benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication >> of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on >> social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider >> benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. >> And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it >> is making today.* >> >> *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital >> is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their >> motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the >> non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the >> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. **[IAS: >> I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being >> compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the >> competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or >> partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] **These are more than just >> domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> *[IAS: I also have few more concerns:* >> >> *1. **Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to >> re-establish of the trust being shacked):* >> >> *i. **the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of >> the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,* >> >> *ii. **the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging >> a proper bidding?,* >> >> *iii. **the reasoning to giving sole power of decision >> of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening >> comments to sell or not?,* >> >> *iv. **the information of intention disclosure regarding >> the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it >> came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales >> agreement).* >> >> *v. **Technical Terms and basis of the Technical >> Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, >> Dependability.* >> >> *vi. **Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, >> Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the >> decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)* >> >> >> >> *2. **I would suggest that the statement should be in the >> following format:* >> >> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >> >> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >> >> What we demand: >> >> Our First Requirement is: >> >> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ >> agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural >> design/basis/planning) >> >> Our Second Requirement is: >> >> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due >> diligence process and stop the deal. >> >> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but >> could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal >> goal-B after the adoption of above…. >> >> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the >> commitment >> >> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >> >> b. long term commitment (after sales), >> >> *(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains >> commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments >> one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos >> Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its >> status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)* >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >> >> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >> >> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human >> rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the >> strong basic argument. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >> To: "parminder" >> Cc: "governance" >> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >> >> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >> >> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate >> the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the >> IGC. >> >> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. >> This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its >> helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more >> information to be able to weigh in. >> >> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need >> to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >> >> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on >> these points that would be helpful. >> >> >> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes >> through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the >> statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the >> sale. >> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater >> transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, >> and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests >> of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites >> every day >> >> >> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky >> issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go >> with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >> >> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has >> alternative ideas please let us know. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >> >> thanks for this effort Ayden >> >> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it >> will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, >> at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set >> PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the >> existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more >> satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >> >> parminder >> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. >> Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank >> you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just >> a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >> >> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale >> altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on >> this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach >> here. >> >> Thanks and best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> *To:* *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the >> announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public >> Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the >> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played >> an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain >> registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial >> exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >> whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely >> financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at >> times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could >> be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a >> proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy >> and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >> infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* >> >> *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, >> and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding >> safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a >> sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to >> incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos >> Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is >> not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >> certification. * >> >> *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being >> governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are >> deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as >> a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does >> proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of >> mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this >> sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the >> publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual >> reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to >> consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are >> being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and >> commitments it is making today.* >> >> >> >> *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital >> is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their >> motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the >> non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the >> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are >> more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* >> >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >> Dear Ayden, all, >> >> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on >> anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be >> rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent >> suggestions and remarks. >> >> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting >> up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to >> ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >> >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding >> the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request >> that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital?* >> >> *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust >> among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who >> play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >> wrote: >> >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I >> believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the >> ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - >> and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these >> questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that >> there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. >> And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did >> before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it >> has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon < >> james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote: >> >> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>  >> Dear all, >> >> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a >> series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I >> discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of >> this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due >> diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to >> request they consider and answer certain questions. >> >> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the >> questions. See below: >> >> >> *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these >> questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital* >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> >> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >> *eliminated* by their >> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >> > >> > Why ? >> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >> world is under >> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >> registrations they are >> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >> >> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to >> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be >> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >> >> >> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards ! >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >> Subscribe to Mailing List : > n/listinfo/cmnog/> >> __ >> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >> soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Dec 7 10:52:14 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 15:52:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, > Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to either continue or denounce membership. No, I think there is a widespread misunderstanding here. I thought ISOC was a membership-based organization too when I became an ISOC member. I think that ISOC's messaging is not clear. They say the Internet is for everyone, and decisions must be made in a bottom-up multistakeholder manner, but ISOC itself is not a multistakeholder organization. ISOC is an independent trust governed by a Board of Trustees. Individual members have an indirect say in appointing *some* of the Trustees. 4 of the 13 Trustees are appointed by Chapters. However, ISOC is not a democratically-run membership organization that exists to represent the views or interests of its members. No decision requires ratification by membership, for example. I think we should keep discussions about ISOC's governance structure separate from those of the proposed sale of PIR, but this is an extremely important issue that I hope we do not lose sight of. As an individual ISOC member I do not think ISOC considers me a stakeholder with whom it owes any responsibilities, obligations, or duties. I think that is extremely problematic. ISOC is the best-funded organization in the Internet freedom movement, but not as effective as it could be were we to better hold them to account for how they spend their public interest money. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 7 December 2019 16:28, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ wrote: > Good steps. Great views. > > The draft statement is super if we address one issue I observe (unless my understanding of it isn't good enough). I think calling for a halt and at the same time seeking greater transparency and appropriate safeguards...to protect the interests of .ORG and so on are not in harmony. > > We either call for a halt outlining the strong reasons for the call (stopping at that for now, as Brett posited) or we ask the board to assure us of the appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the interests and rights of registrants and their sites users, for the sale to remain. I think this option is makes much sense if, as Ayden observed, the board is unbendable in its wrong action. This stance of the board (confirmed by Sullivan's statements and those of other board members in some press articles) outrightly questions what my (and anyone else's) membership of ISOC means. > > Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to either continue or denounce membership. > >>> On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>>  >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. >>> >>> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >>>> >>>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >>>> >>>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >>>> >>>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>>> >>>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >>>> >>>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >>>> >>>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >>>> >>>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >>>> >>>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>>> >>>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>>> >>>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >>>> >>>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>>> >>>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>>>> >>>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>>> >>>>> Few comments: >>>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>>>> >>>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>> >>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>> >>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>>>> >>>>> Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>> >>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>>>> >>>>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>>>> >>>>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>>>> >>>>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>>>> >>>>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>>>> >>>>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>>>> >>>>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>>>> >>>>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>>>> >>>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>>> >>>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>>> >>>>> What we demand: >>>>> >>>>> Our First Requirement is: >>>>> >>>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>>>> >>>>> Our Second Requirement is: >>>>> >>>>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>>> >>>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>>>> >>>>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>>>> >>>>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>>> >>>>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>>>> >>>>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> >>>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>> To: "parminder" >>>>> Cc: "governance" >>>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>>>> >>>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>>>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>>>> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>>>> >>>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar [](mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> [>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> riseup.net>](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, [68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL](https://www.google.com/maps/search/68-80+Hanbury+Street,+London,+E1+5JL?entry=gmail&source=g) >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, [68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL](https://www.google.com/maps/search/68-80+Hanbury+Street,+London,+E1+5JL?entry=gmail&source=g) >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: > > -- > > Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D. > Computer Communications Centre > University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 > @DrCPUNjoku > > We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, > > especially if they're not yielding optimum results. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Dec 7 13:04:16 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amali De Silva (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 18:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <249689857.10213922.1575741857013@mail.yahoo.com> just a broad comment taking no position on the arguments to / form being discussed - only a point of information  : There are new non profit commercial venture based entities in existence now. Some jurisdictions have allowed the incorporation of these new commercial non profit organizations … the available non-profit  structures has changed considerably over the past few years as traditional sources of revenue diwindle …… Amali De Silva Mitchelll     On Saturday, December 7, 2019, 07:28:47 a.m. PST, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ wrote: Good steps. Great views. The draft statement is super if we address one issue I observe (unless my understanding of it isn't good enough). I think calling for a halt and at the same time seeking greater transparency and appropriate safeguards...to protect the interests of .ORG and so on are not in harmony.  We either call for a halt outlining the strong reasons for the call (stopping at that for now, as Brett posited) or we ask the board to assure us of the appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the interests and rights of registrants and their sites users, for the sale to remain. I think this option is makes much sense if, as Ayden observed, the board is unbendable in its wrong action. This stance of the board (confirmed by Sullivan's statements and those of other board members in some press articles) outrightly questions what my (and anyone else's) membership of ISOC means.  Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to either continue or denounce membership. On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for.I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. BestSheetal On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Sheetal, I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. Few comments: I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of theICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enoughbenefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover tosome other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... tobenefit next one after ISOC....  Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial andnonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundredsof the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board...  I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGCon PIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =  To: Gonzalo Camarillo,Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a networkwhich encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interesttechnologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital isacquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the InternetSociety (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.   Principally, we areconcerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter theDomain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the onlyremaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as acounterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONGfor the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run byprivate companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests ofcompanies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when thisoccurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary ofISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, andhas a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacyand influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internetinfrastructure [IAS:suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its controlover PIR, ISOC loses its ability to directly impact how millions of peoplearound the world positively experience the Internet every day, and we thinkthat is a great pity. This is a significantchange, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfiedthat there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of.ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites everyday. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call thisdeal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble requestor perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanksfor your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the takethe deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the dealor what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific resultthat we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capitalcommit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them toproceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws andcommitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protectedas a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor“Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entityhow we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capitalhas said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the samething as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should useit as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interestentity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘theBoard’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decisionmaker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercializedby the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] Largeparts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have touse other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIRrepresentative has responded like this “the objections are not reported fromthe majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern whois running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely bycommercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate“the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] aredeeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as abenefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceedto sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigatingagainst some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. Abenefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication ofcomprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on socialimpact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits tothe public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it wouldoblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that youunderstand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, andin the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIRand their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmentalcommunities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONGdomain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraisingefforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is notbeing compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors(right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partnercommercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desireto do good. = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =   [IAS: Ialso have few more concerns: 1.       Needs transparency and disclosure ofthe followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): i.                     the reasoning behind the selling PIR‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, ii.                   the reasoning behind the avoidanceof engaging a proper bidding?, iii.                  the reasoning to giving sole powerof decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition andopening comments to sell or not?, iv.                 the information of intention disclosureregarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, whenit came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post salesagreement). v.                   Technical Terms and basis of the TechnicalEvaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. vi.                 Safeguards evaluated in terms ofPublic Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated beforemaking the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)   2.       I would suggest that the statementshould be in the following format: Preamble/Preface paragraph: Objection/Obligation/Concerns What we demand: Our First Requirement is: Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure ofdeal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) Our Second Requirement is: A.      The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligenceprocess and stop the deal. If the efforts for A areconvincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving requiredgoal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. B.      What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment a.       Immediate commitment (prior to sale), b.      long term commitment (after sales), (by the way I am notconvinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interestfor long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any othercommercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements withISOC stands?)  = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sheetal Kumar" To: "parminder" Cc: "governance" Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. Best Sheetal On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: thanks for this effort Ayden But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? parminder On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. Thanks and best wishes, Ayden Férdeline To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.   Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification.  Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today.   We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear Ayden, all, Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote:  Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:   - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses.  Please try again, with simpler construction.  You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb.                                   -Bill -- -- Best Regards !                          baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬ :33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -- Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --   Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.Computer Communications CentreUniversity of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 at DrCPUNjoku  We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icggov at johnlevine.com Sat Dec 7 14:07:00 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 7 Dec 2019 14:07:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <249689857.10213922.1575741857013@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20191207190701.94BD7103680B@ary.qy> In article <249689857.10213922.1575741857013 at mail.yahoo.com> you write: >just a broad comment taking no position on the arguments to / form being discussed - only a point of information  : There are new non profit >commercial venture based entities in existence now. Some jurisdictions have allowed the incorporation of these new commercial non profit >organizations … the available non-profit  structures has changed considerably over the past few years as traditional sources of revenue >diwindle …… Amali De Silva Mitchelll In the US, non-profits have owned commercial businesses for a long time. There's nothing new about it. The one people here are likely most familiar with is the Mozilla Foundation which owns the much larger Mozilla Corporation, but there are plenty of others like the Hershey Trust which owns most of the Hershey candy company and uses the income to run schools for orphans and other disadvantaged children. From woody at pch.net Sun Dec 1 20:14:26 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 02:14:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> <1726077541.2019652.1575226698734@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 1, 2019, at 7:58 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital presence of work for good reasons". Can you elaborate on where you think a meaningful threshold lies? Right now, the wholesale price is $10, and the retail price is (mostly) between $11 and $21. And there are ~50x as many domain speculators as non-profits in .ORG. My own feeling, as the administrator of a number of non-profits, is that I’m relatively price-insensitive. I pay many tens of thousands of dollars to RIRs for my IP addresses each year. I pay for IRR registrations. I pay for trademarks. $11 or $100 or $1,000 really don’t make much difference one way or other in my budget. If I were running much smaller non-profits, I can imagine that $1,000 might start to be visible in the budget, but $100 still would not be. On the other hand, at $100, all but the hardiest of domain speculators would be gone. If you’re trying to maximize registry revenue, it makes much more sense to set a price in the $10-$15 range. If you’re trying to serve a constituency, it makes much more sense to set the price higher; at a price they don’t mind (because they only use one or two), but which will drive out the speculators who preclude constituent registrations (because the speculators hoard hundreds or thousands, and that’s their primary expense). -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 7 15:46:50 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 20:46:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think a statement that concentrates on stop the sale is the best way to go. And I agree the governance/ISOC reform issue has to be addressed - but not in this statement ------ Original Message ------ From: "Ayden Férdeline" To: "Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ" Cc: "Bill Woodcock" ; "Sheetal Kumar" ; "ias_pk at yahoo.com" ; "Ian Peter" ; "governance" Sent: 8/12/2019 2:52:14 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >Hi, > >>Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be >>answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to >>either continue or denounce membership. > >No, I think there is a widespread misunderstanding here. > >I thought ISOC was a membership-based organization too when I became an >ISOC member. > >I think that ISOC's messaging is not clear. They say the Internet is >for everyone, and decisions must be made in a bottom-up >multistakeholder manner, but ISOC itself is not a multistakeholder >organization. > >ISOC is an independent trust governed by a Board of Trustees. > >Individual members have an indirect say in appointing *some* of the >Trustees. 4 of the 13 Trustees are appointed by Chapters. > >However, ISOC is not a democratically-run membership organization that >exists to represent the views or interests of its members. No decision >requires ratification by membership, for example. > >I think we should keep discussions about ISOC's governance structure >separate from those of the proposed sale of PIR, but this is an >extremely important issue that I hope we do not lose sight of. > >As an individual ISOC member I do not think ISOC considers me a >stakeholder with whom it owes any responsibilities, obligations, or >duties. I think that is extremely problematic. ISOC is the best-funded >organization in the Internet freedom movement, but not as effective as >it could be were we to better hold them to account for how they spend >their public interest money. > >Ayden Férdeline > > > > >‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >On Saturday, 7 December 2019 16:28, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ > wrote: > >>Good steps. Great views. >> >>The draft statement is super if we address one issue I observe (unless >>my understanding of it isn't good enough). I think calling for a halt >>and at the same time seeking greater transparency and appropriate >>safeguards...to protect the interests of .ORG and so on are not in >>harmony. >> >>We either call for a halt outlining the strong reasons for the call >>(stopping at that for now, as Brett posited) or we ask the board to >>assure us of the appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the >>interests and rights of registrants and their sites users, for the >>sale to remain. I think this option is makes much sense if, as Ayden >>observed, the board is unbendable in its wrong action. This stance of >>the board (confirmed by Sullivan's statements and those of other board >>members in some press articles) outrightly questions what my (and >>anyone else's) membership of ISOC means. >> >>Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be >>answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to >>either continue or denounce membership. >>> >>>>On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we >>>>must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement >>>>that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there >>>>are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the >>>>deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a >>>>benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale >>>>unless certain conditions are met. >>>> >>>>Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest >>>>we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with >>>>that. >>>> >>>> >>>>Best >>>>Sheetal >>>> >>>>On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline >>>>wrote: >>>>>Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and >>>>>questions. >>>>> >>>>>It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be >>>>>a disaster. >>>>> >>>>>I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change >>>>>its decision here. >>>>> >>>>>All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make >>>>>indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a >>>>>non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>>>> >>>>>They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and >>>>>believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than >>>>>meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >>>>> >>>>>I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of >>>>>their comments. >>>>> >>>>>So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was >>>>>proposing. >>>>> >>>>>If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down >>>>>(nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely >>>>>held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we >>>>>need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there >>>>>being certain protections in place for registrants. >>>>> >>>>>PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC >>>>>may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for >>>>>this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its >>>>>shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs >>>>>on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has >>>>>said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going >>>>>forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role >>>>>is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the >>>>>best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>>>> >>>>>The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just >>>>>the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR >>>>>incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B >>>>>Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I >>>>>think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>>>> >>>>>If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if >>>>>PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term >>>>>assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal >>>>>impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can >>>>>be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >>>>> >>>>>ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to >>>>>consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, >>>>>non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The >>>>>Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I >>>>>don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel >>>>>ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it >>>>>is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance >>>>>deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the >>>>>future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. >>>>>But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps >>>>>forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>>>> >>>>>If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what >>>>>little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is >>>>>likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>>>> >>>>>Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>>Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Dear Sheetal, >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our >>>>>>statement. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the >>>>>>initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>>>> >>>>>>Few comments: >>>>>>I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of >>>>>>Money.... in any case... >>>>>>We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>>>>Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference >>>>>>of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the >>>>>>dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if >>>>>>the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should >>>>>>have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some >>>>>>other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations >>>>>>working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the >>>>>>Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next >>>>>>one after ISOC.... >>>>>> >>>>>>Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into >>>>>>the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if >>>>>>they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members >>>>>>or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public >>>>>>interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>>>>> >>>>>>I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with >>>>>>the points shared by you... >>>>>>https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>> >>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >>>>>>Society >>>>>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>>>organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned >>>>>>by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of >>>>>>the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society >>>>>>(ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>> >>>>>>Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private >>>>>>entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >>>>>>ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining >>>>>>non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a >>>>>>counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, >>>>>>.NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other >>>>>>top-level domains are run by private companies with purely >>>>>>financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users >>>>>>do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs >>>>>>there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a >>>>>>subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for >>>>>>domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just >>>>>>that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It >>>>>>allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >>>>>>infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public >>>>>>Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC >>>>>>loses 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >>>>>>community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate >>>>>>safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and >>>>>>.ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every >>>>>>day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to >>>>>>call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be >>>>>>put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps >>>>>>diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer >>>>>>“thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate >>>>>>at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from >>>>>>ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What >>>>>>to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change >>>>>>this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending >>>>>>or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos >>>>>>Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. >>>>>>[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and >>>>>>seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment >>>>>>of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity >>>>>>protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and >>>>>>understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the >>>>>>PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he >>>>>>will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand >>>>>>that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B >>>>>>Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and >>>>>>is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we >>>>>>should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to >>>>>>transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial >>>>>>entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is >>>>>>this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of >>>>>>decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity >>>>>>will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they >>>>>>accepted it?] >>>>>> >>>>>>Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use >>>>>>other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the >>>>>>ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections >>>>>>are not reported from the majority of users, which means the >>>>>>majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] >>>>>>are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by >>>>>>commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that >>>>>>we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition >>>>>>Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with >>>>>>PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit >>>>>>corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does >>>>>>proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest >>>>>>rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of >>>>>>mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging >>>>>>from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction >>>>>>would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, >>>>>>independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, >>>>>>most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to >>>>>>the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. >>>>>>And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and >>>>>>commitments it is making today. >>>>>> >>>>>>We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos >>>>>>Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear >>>>>>information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their >>>>>>sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental >>>>>>communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, >>>>>>and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, >>>>>>campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I >>>>>>suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being >>>>>>compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to >>>>>>the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the >>>>>>Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These >>>>>>are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do >>>>>>good. >>>>>> >>>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>>[IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>>>>> >>>>>>1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to >>>>>>re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>>>>> >>>>>>i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out >>>>>>of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>>>>> >>>>>>ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of >>>>>>engaging a proper bidding?, >>>>>> >>>>>>iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of >>>>>>decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition >>>>>>and opening comments to sell or not?, >>>>>> >>>>>>iv. the information of intention disclosure >>>>>>regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to >>>>>>B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies >>>>>>(prior/during/post sales agreement). >>>>>> >>>>>>v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical >>>>>>Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, >>>>>>Dependability. >>>>>> >>>>>>vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public >>>>>>Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated >>>>>>before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the >>>>>>following format: >>>>>> >>>>>>Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>>>> >>>>>>Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>>>> >>>>>>What we demand: >>>>>> >>>>>>Our First Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>>Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ >>>>>>agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural >>>>>>design/basis/planning) >>>>>> >>>>>>Our Second Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>>A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the >>>>>>due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>>>> >>>>>>If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and >>>>>>but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve >>>>>>minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>>>>> >>>>>>B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. >>>>>>ensure the commitment >>>>>> >>>>>>a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>>>> >>>>>>b. long term commitment (after sales), >>>>>> >>>>>>(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization >>>>>>remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. >>>>>>Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not >>>>>>beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any >>>>>>other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where >>>>>>the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>>= = = = = >>>>>> >>>>>>Best Regards >>>>>> >>>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>> >>>>>>[TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>>>> >>>>>>On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the >>>>>>human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add >>>>>>great value to the strong basic argument. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ian >>>>>> >>>>>>------ Original Message ------ >>>>>>From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>>>To: "parminder" >>>>>>Cc: "governance" >>>>>>Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I >>>>>>>appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are >>>>>>>clearly present in the IGC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this >>>>>>>list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a >>>>>>>poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people >>>>>>>feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that >>>>>>>we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising >>>>>>>text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree >>>>>>>on these points that would be helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the >>>>>>>sale >>>>>>>There are potential implications for human rights if the sale >>>>>>>goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>>>>As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the >>>>>>>statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright >>>>>>>halt to the sale. >>>>>>>At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater >>>>>>>transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of >>>>>>>this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to >>>>>>>protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the >>>>>>>people who visit their websites every day >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a >>>>>>>tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we >>>>>>>might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if >>>>>>>anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Best >>>>>>>Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out >>>>>>>>there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society >>>>>>>>groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did >>>>>>>>not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation >>>>>>>>(which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement >>>>>>>>(since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why >>>>>>>>not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider >>>>>>>>>issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a >>>>>>>>>starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the >>>>>>>>>messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do >>>>>>>>>feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the >>>>>>>>>sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a >>>>>>>>>number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, >>>>>>>>>I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>>>>>Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, >>>>>>>>>Internet Society >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>>>>>>organizations and public interest technologists, we are >>>>>>>>>concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring >>>>>>>>>the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the >>>>>>>>>Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>>>>>>>Registry Agreements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private >>>>>>>>>entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and >>>>>>>>>weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only >>>>>>>>>remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in >>>>>>>>>serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >>>>>>>>>PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >>>>>>>>>whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies >>>>>>>>>with purely financial objectives. While the interests of >>>>>>>>>companies and users do at times overlap, they can also >>>>>>>>>conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human >>>>>>>>>rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be >>>>>>>>>relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >>>>>>>>>and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also >>>>>>>>>gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an >>>>>>>>>active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In >>>>>>>>>relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >>>>>>>>>community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are >>>>>>>>>appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of >>>>>>>>>.ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their >>>>>>>>>websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >>>>>>>>>Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and >>>>>>>>>binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to >>>>>>>>>do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have >>>>>>>>>Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit >>>>>>>>>corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are >>>>>>>>>evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same >>>>>>>>>thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >>>>>>>>>certification. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet >>>>>>>>>being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of >>>>>>>>>our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at >>>>>>>>>all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could >>>>>>>>>provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell >>>>>>>>>the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of >>>>>>>>>mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee >>>>>>>>>emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right >>>>>>>>>jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, >>>>>>>>>credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social >>>>>>>>>impact and, most importantly, require the organization to >>>>>>>>>consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when >>>>>>>>>decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to >>>>>>>>>honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos >>>>>>>>>Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear >>>>>>>>>information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their >>>>>>>>>sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental >>>>>>>>>communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, >>>>>>>>>.NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >>>>>>>>>websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. >>>>>>>>>These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our >>>>>>>>>desire to do good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>>On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going >>>>>>>>>>to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we >>>>>>>>>>can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the >>>>>>>>>>below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking >>>>>>>>>>about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) >>>>>>>>>>and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have >>>>>>>>>>any others? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>>>>>>>organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency >>>>>>>>>>regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale >>>>>>>>>>of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the >>>>>>>>>>due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the >>>>>>>>>>existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing >>>>>>>>>>rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to >>>>>>>>>>ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >>>>>>>>>>behalf of the public interest and the world community of >>>>>>>>>>noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>>- What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations >>>>>>>>>>engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >>>>>>>>>>possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship >>>>>>>>>>to Ethos capital? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>We request answers to these questions in the spirit of >>>>>>>>>>building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency >>>>>>>>>>more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the >>>>>>>>>>Internet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of >>>>>>>>>>>Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to >>>>>>>>>>>them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage >>>>>>>>>>>us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions >>>>>>>>>>>and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the >>>>>>>>>>>perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are >>>>>>>>>>>behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more >>>>>>>>>>>transparent about what due diligence it did before entering >>>>>>>>>>>into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has >>>>>>>>>>>put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>>>>>>>>>registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>>>>On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN >>>>>>>>>>>>>Board with a series of questions in order to get more >>>>>>>>>>>>>transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. >>>>>>>>>>>>>As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>due diligence process, we thought it might be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>constructive approach to request they consider and answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>certain questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It would be great to hear your views on this approach and >>>>>>>>>>>>>on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that >>>>>>>>>>>>>these questions are considered in the due diligence >>>>>>>>>>>>>process: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the >>>>>>>>>>>>>existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>>>>- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve >>>>>>>>>>>>>existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of >>>>>>>>>>>>>.org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in >>>>>>>>>>>>>the world? >>>>>>>>>>>>>- What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations >>>>>>>>>>>>>engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of >>>>>>>>>>>>>stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Best >>>>>>>>>>>>>Sheetal >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>construction. You can break it out into as many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sentences as you like, but please try to make each one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be able to engage in a constructive conversation with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>--sb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>__ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de >>>>>>>>>>>>>>‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>>>>>>>‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>#Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>>>>>>>>>E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>>>>>>E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>>>--- >>>>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> >>>>>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>>To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>List help: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Sheetal Kumar >>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> >>>>T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>List help: >> >> >>-- >> >>Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D. >>Computer Communications Centre >>University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 >>@DrCPUNjoku >> We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, >> >>especially if they're not yielding optimum results. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Dec 7 19:35:36 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 00:35:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped. I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think. Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. > > Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >> >> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >> >> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >> >> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >> >> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >> >> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >> >> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >> >> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >> >> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >> >> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >> >> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >> >> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >> >> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Dear Sheetal, >>> >>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>> >>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>> >>> Few comments: >>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>> >>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>> >>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>> >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> >>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>> >>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>> >>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>> >>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>> >>> Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>> >>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>> >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> >>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>> >>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>> >>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>> >>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>> >>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>> >>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>> >>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>> >>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>> >>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>> >>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>> >>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>> >>> What we demand: >>> >>> Our First Requirement is: >>> >>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>> >>> Our Second Requirement is: >>> >>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>> >>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>> >>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>> >>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>> >>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>> >>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>> >>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>> >>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>> To: "parminder" >>> Cc: "governance" >>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>> >>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>> >>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>> >>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>> >>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>> >>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>> >>>> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>> >>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>> >>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>> >>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>> >>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>>> >>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>> >>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar [](mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: > > -- > > Sheetal Kumar > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sat Dec 7 19:54:03 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 19:54:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit > corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of > sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one > way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? My guess is this would be futile. The BoT probably a) can't and likely b) won't. joly On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I > also want the sale stopped. > > I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board > has made it abundantly clear that their priority was > stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR > to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with > comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current > board and what they think. > > Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way > to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think > Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, > however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order > to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the > Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar < > sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must > ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this > isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches > suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and > asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a > halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. > > Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we > hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. > > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >> >> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a >> disaster. >> >> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its >> decision here. >> >> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make >> indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a >> non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >> >> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe >> the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the >> public interest elements of their charter. >> >> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their >> comments. >> >> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >> >> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor >> in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone >> but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on >> the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place >> for registrants. >> >> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may >> have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to >> happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and >> it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to >> fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of >> operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his >> fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital >> and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >> >> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the >> fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a >> real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are >> being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for >> at present. >> >> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is >> subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances >> that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as >> fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if >> Ethos Capital so desires. >> >> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to >> consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, >> non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is >> not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that >> changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It >> is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent >> trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to >> address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs >> $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else >> steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >> >> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what >> little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to >> accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> Dear Sheetal, >> >> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >> >> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft >> of Ayden and copying hereunder. >> >> Few comments: >> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in >> any case... >> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the >> ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to >> support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough >> benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so >> that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, >> credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to >> over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit >> next one after ISOC.... >> >> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the >> hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be >> able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or >> buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some >> kind of notional support board... >> >> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the >> points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >> >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> *To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the >> announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public >> Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the >> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played >> an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain >> registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial >> exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >> whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely >> financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at >> times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could >> be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a >> proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy >> and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >> infrastructure **[IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest >> Intact”]**. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* >> >> *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, >> and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding >> safeguards cannot be put in place**.* *[IAS: it very polite, humble >> request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple >> answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at >> this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair >> in 2009]** We encourage you to do just that.** [IAS: What to do, to stop >> the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be >> specific result that we are recommending or demanding] **As a sign of >> good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR >> as a benefit corporation. **[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed >> with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and >> commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity >> protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding >> that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in >> B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he >> has investing billions..] **We understand that Ethos Capital has said >> they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing >> as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. **[IAS: >> I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention >> to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. >> In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was >> in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this >> faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new >> investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?]* >> >> *Large parts of the world* *[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use >> other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR >> representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported >> from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no >> concern who is running the registry”]** are uncomfortable with the >> Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our >> members **[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g >> IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] **are >> deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as >> a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does >> proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be **[IAS: I suggest >> rephrase “Could have been assured”] **an effective means of mitigating >> against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A >> benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication >> of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on >> social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider >> benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. >> And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it >> is making today.* >> >> *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital >> is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their >> motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the >> non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the >> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. **[IAS: >> I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being >> compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the >> competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or >> partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] **These are more than just >> domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> *[IAS: I also have few more concerns:* >> >> *1. **Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to >> re-establish of the trust being shacked):* >> >> *i. **the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of >> the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,* >> >> *ii. **the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging >> a proper bidding?,* >> >> *iii. **the reasoning to giving sole power of decision >> of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening >> comments to sell or not?,* >> >> *iv. **the information of intention disclosure regarding >> the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it >> came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales >> agreement).* >> >> *v. **Technical Terms and basis of the Technical >> Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, >> Dependability.* >> >> *vi. **Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, >> Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the >> decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)* >> >> >> >> *2. **I would suggest that the statement should be in the >> following format:* >> >> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >> >> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >> >> What we demand: >> >> Our First Requirement is: >> >> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ >> agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural >> design/basis/planning) >> >> Our Second Requirement is: >> >> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due >> diligence process and stop the deal. >> >> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but >> could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal >> goal-B after the adoption of above…. >> >> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the >> commitment >> >> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >> >> b. long term commitment (after sales), >> >> *(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains >> commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments >> one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos >> Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its >> status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)* >> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> = = >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >> >> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> >> >> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human >> rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the >> strong basic argument. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >> To: "parminder" >> Cc: "governance" >> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >> >> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >> >> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate >> the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the >> IGC. >> >> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. >> This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its >> helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more >> information to be able to weigh in. >> >> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need >> to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >> >> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on >> these points that would be helpful. >> >> >> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes >> through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the >> statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the >> sale. >> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater >> transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, >> and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests >> of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites >> every day >> >> >> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky >> issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go >> with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >> >> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has >> alternative ideas please let us know. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >> >> thanks for this effort Ayden >> >> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it >> will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, >> at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set >> PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the >> existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more >> satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >> >> parminder >> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. >> Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank >> you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just >> a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >> >> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale >> altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on >> this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach >> here. >> >> Thanks and best wishes, >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> *To:* *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society* >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the >> announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public >> Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the >> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. * >> >> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity >> will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played >> an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain >> registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial >> exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >> whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely >> financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at >> times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could >> be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a >> proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy >> and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet >> infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.* >> >> *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, >> and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place >> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people >> who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding >> safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a >> sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to >> incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos >> Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is >> not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >> certification. * >> >> *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being >> governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are >> deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as >> a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does >> proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of >> mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this >> sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the >> publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual >> reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to >> consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are >> being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and >> commitments it is making today.* >> >> >> >> *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital >> is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their >> motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the >> non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the >> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are >> more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.* >> >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >> Dear Ayden, all, >> >> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on >> anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be >> rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent >> suggestions and remarks. >> >> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting >> up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to >> ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >> >> >> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding >> the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request >> that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital?* >> >> *We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust >> among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who >> play a key role in stewarding the Internet.* >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >> wrote: >> >> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I >> believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the >> ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - >> and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these >> questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >> >> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that >> there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. >> And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did >> before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it >> has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >> Thanks. >> >> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >> >> >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon < >> james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote: >> >> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>  >> Dear all, >> >> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a >> series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I >> discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of >> this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due >> diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to >> request they consider and answer certain questions. >> >> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the >> questions. See below: >> >> >> *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these >> questions are considered in the due diligence process: * >> >> >> >> >> *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing >> millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to >> preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board >> intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >> behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, >> civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect >> those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the >> world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos >> capital* >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> >> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >> *eliminated* by their >> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >> > >> > Why ? >> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >> world is under >> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >> registrations they are >> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >> >> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to >> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be >> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >> >> >> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards ! >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >> Subscribe to Mailing List : < >> https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> >> __ >> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >> soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> > > -- > > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sat Dec 7 20:01:50 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 17:01:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Uh... this is an already signed contract. ISOC doesn’t have the ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, so it’s not something that they can be talked into. So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the Pennsylvania courts. ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose. -Bill > On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >  > I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped. > > I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think. > > Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. >> >> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. >> >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >>> >>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >>> >>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >>> >>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>> >>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >>> >>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >>> >>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >>> >>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >>> >>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>> >>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>> >>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >>> >>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>> >>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>> >>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>>> >>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>> >>>> Few comments: >>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>>> >>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>>> >>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>> >>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>> >>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>>> Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>>> >>>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>>> >>>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>>> >>>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>>> >>>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>>> >>>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>>> >>>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>>> >>>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>>> >>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>> >>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>> >>>> What we demand: >>>> >>>> Our First Requirement is: >>>> >>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>>> >>>> Our Second Requirement is: >>>> >>>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>> >>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>>> >>>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>>> >>>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>> >>>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>>> >>>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>>> >>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> >>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>> >>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>> >>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>> To: "parminder" >>>> Cc: "governance" >>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>> >>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>> >>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>>> >>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>>> >>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>>> >>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>>> There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>> As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>>> At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>>> >>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>>> >>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>> >>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>> >>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>> >>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>>> >>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>> >>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Dec 7 20:05:48 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 01:05:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> Surely ISOC can still call the sale off. What penalties may exist if that happens, though, I don't know. But perhaps that is something that ISOC needs to explore? Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:01 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > Uh... this is an already signed contract. ISOC doesn’t have the ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, so it’s not something that they can be talked into. > > So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the Pennsylvania courts. ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose. > > -Bill > >> On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > >>  >> I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped. >> >> I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think. >> >> Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. >>> >>> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >>>> >>>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >>>> >>>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >>>> >>>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>>> >>>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >>>> >>>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >>>> >>>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >>>> >>>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >>>> >>>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>>> >>>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>>> >>>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >>>> >>>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>>> >>>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>>>> >>>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>>> >>>>> Few comments: >>>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>>>> >>>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>>>> >>>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>> >>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>> >>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>> >>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>>>> >>>>> Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>> >>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>>>> >>>>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>>>> >>>>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>>>> >>>>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>>>> >>>>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>>>> >>>>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>>>> >>>>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>>>> >>>>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>>>> >>>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>>> >>>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>>> >>>>> What we demand: >>>>> >>>>> Our First Requirement is: >>>>> >>>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>>>> >>>>> Our Second Requirement is: >>>>> >>>>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>>> >>>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>>>> >>>>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>>>> >>>>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>>> >>>>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>>>> >>>>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>>>> >>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> >>>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>> To: "parminder" >>>>> Cc: "governance" >>>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>>>> >>>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>>>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>>>> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>>>> >>>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar [](mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Dec 7 20:08:12 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 01:08:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Below is a proposed statement calling for ISOC to cancel the deal. I have tried to incorporate as many comments as possible that I have heard expressed on this mailing list. It's far from complete, but I hope this might be a helpful starting point. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. We ask that this sale be called off. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC would lose 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. We understand that Ethos Capital approached ISOC with an offer in September 2019 and that an agreement had been reached to sell PIR by November 2019. This secret process caught us, and everyone, unaware, not just of the transaction but of the urgency to divest of PIR. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and it has been proposed a) without a human rights impact assessment being conducted, b) without consultation with impacted stakeholders, and c) without appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. ISOC has successfully stewarded .ORG via PIR for 17 years, gaining a reputation as a careful manager of a resource that truly is the global home for nonprofits and the noncommercial community. Given this background, and ISOC’s stated commitments to transparency and openness, we are unable to reconcile the path that you have taken with the values we thought ISOC espoused. Accordingly, we ask that this sale be terminated. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Surely ISOC can still call the sale off. What penalties may exist if that happens, though, I don't know. But perhaps that is something that ISOC needs to explore? > > Ayden Férdeline > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:01 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> Uh... this is an already signed contract. ISOC doesn’t have the ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, so it’s not something that they can be talked into. >> >> So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the Pennsylvania courts. ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose. >> >> -Bill >> >>> On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >>>  >>> I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped. >>> >>> I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think. >>> >>> Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. >>>> >>>> Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. >>>>> >>>>> It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. >>>>> >>>>> I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. >>>>> >>>>> All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. >>>>> >>>>> They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. >>>>> >>>>> I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. >>>>> >>>>> So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. >>>>> >>>>> If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. >>>>> >>>>> PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. >>>>> >>>>> The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. >>>>> >>>>> If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. >>>>> >>>>> ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. >>>>> >>>>> If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Few comments: >>>>>> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... >>>>>> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >>>>>> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... >>>>>> >>>>>> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>> >>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>> >>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] >>>>>> >>>>>> Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>> >>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>> >>>>>> [IAS: I also have few more concerns: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): >>>>>> >>>>>> i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, >>>>>> >>>>>> ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, >>>>>> >>>>>> iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, >>>>>> >>>>>> iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). >>>>>> >>>>>> v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. >>>>>> >>>>>> vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: >>>>>> >>>>>> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >>>>>> >>>>>> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >>>>>> >>>>>> What we demand: >>>>>> >>>>>> Our First Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) >>>>>> >>>>>> Our Second Requirement is: >>>>>> >>>>>> A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >>>>>> >>>>>> B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment >>>>>> >>>>>> a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >>>>>> >>>>>> b. long term commitment (after sales), >>>>>> >>>>>> (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) >>>>>> >>>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>>> >>>>>> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>>> From: "Sheetal Kumar" >>>>>> To: "parminder" >>>>>> Cc: "governance" >>>>>> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>>>>>> - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>>>>>> - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. >>>>>>> - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar [](mailto:sheetal at gp-digital.org) wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>>>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>>>>>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>>>>>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Bill >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> __ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>> [](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net) >>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>>> [](https://riseup.net/lists) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sheetal Kumar >>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at palage.com Sat Dec 7 20:35:16 2019 From: mike at palage.com (Michael Palage) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 20:35:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> Ayden, I think Bill is making a valid point most people are not fully appreciating. ISOC and Ethos have already signed a deal, and while the terms of the deal are still under a NDA, it would not surprise me if there was a substantial poison pill if ISOC tried to back out. I believe Bill has properly identified the two key gatekeepers, ICANN and the PA Court. In looking at ICANN’s internal procedures and past precedent, the only possible option I see at this time would be to potential incorporate some of the 2002 representations and Ethos most recent representations in a Specification 11. That is it. I do not see how ICANN can block this deal. I also do not believe anyone on this list has looked at the legal exposure ICANN faces if they try to wrongfully deny the deal. Please refer to the following Registry Agreement provision where PIR/Ethos would be able to recover their attorney’s fees against ICANN if they prevailed: “The prevailing party in the arbitration will have the right to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, which the arbitrator(s) shall include in the awards.” Best regards, Michael From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 8:06 PM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: Sheetal Kumar ; ias_pk at yahoo.com; Ian Peter ; governance Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Surely ISOC can still call the sale off. What penalties may exist if that happens, though, I don't know. But perhaps that is something that ISOC needs to explore? Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:01 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: Uh... this is an already signed contract. ISOC doesn’t have the ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, so it’s not something that they can be talked into. So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the Pennsylvania courts. ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose. -Bill On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote:  I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped. I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think. Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses? Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met. Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that. Best Sheetal On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster. I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here. All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter. I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments. So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants. PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants. The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present. If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind. If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: Dear Sheetal, I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. Few comments: I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC.... Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board... I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [IAS: I also have few more concerns: 1. Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): i. the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, ii. the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, iii. the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, iv. the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). v. Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. vi. Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG) 2. I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: Preamble/Preface paragraph: Objection/Obligation/Concerns What we demand: Our First Requirement is: Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) Our Second Requirement is: A. The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. B. What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment a. Immediate commitment (prior to sale), b. long term commitment (after sales), (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter < ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sheetal Kumar" < sheetal at gp-digital.org> To: "parminder" < parminder at itforchange.net> Cc: "governance" < governance at lists.riseup.net> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC. I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in. To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful. * There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale * There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) * As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. * At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know. Best Sheetal On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: thanks for this effort Ayden But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? parminder On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all, I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces. Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here. Thanks and best wishes, Ayden Férdeline To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements. Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear Ayden, all, Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others? As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital? We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet. On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline < ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote: While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon < james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote: These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar < sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:  Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock < woody at pch.net> a écrit : > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb. -Bill -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | < https://www.cmnog.cm> | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : < https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE|‪#‎Romains15:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU de ‪#‎Paix soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen!» ‪#‎MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) --- To unsubscribe: igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> List help: < https://riseup.net/lists> -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD151.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Dec 7 22:57:05 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 03:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <1642410888.10318504.1575777425255@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Michael,  Why it will be wrongful for ICANN and secondly why we assume prevailing party will be Ethos/PIR.  ICANN has to Intervene in Public Interest at the time when dealing was exposed to it on the basis of lack of transparency, as well as avoiding bidding mechanism. Or when they have received Public comments against the price cap removal. Removal of ICANN price control also encouraged the commercial interest magnification.  When are writing to ISOC BoT we can also send other statement to the ICANN Board.  Thanks  Imran Ahmed Shah  On Sunday, 8 December 2019, 06:35:19 GMT+5, Michael Palage wrote: Ayden,   I think Bill is making a valid point most people are not fully appreciating.  ISOC and Ethos have already signed a deal, and while the terms of the deal are still under a NDA, it would not surprise me if there was a substantial poison pill if ISOC tried to back out.   I believe Bill has properly identified the two key gatekeepers, ICANN and the PA Court.  In looking at ICANN’s internal procedures and past precedent, the only possible option I see at this time would be to potential incorporate some of the 2002 representations and Ethos most recent representations in a Specification 11. That is it.  I do not see how ICANN can block this deal.  I also do not believe anyone on this list has looked at the legal exposure ICANN faces if they try to wrongfully deny the deal.  Please refer to the following Registry Agreement provision where PIR/Ethos would be able to recover their attorney’s fees against ICANN if they prevailed: “The prevailing party in the arbitration will have the right to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, which the arbitrator(s) shall include in the awards.”   Best regards,   Michael         From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 8:06 PM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: Sheetal Kumar ; ias_pk at yahoo.com; Ian Peter ; governance Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale   Surely ISOC can still call the sale off. What penalties may exist if that happens, though, I don't know. But perhaps that is something that ISOC needs to explore?   Ayden Férdeline      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 8, 2019 2:01 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:   Uh...  this is an already signed contract.  ISOC doesn’t have the ability to renege on the contract, that’s not an option they have, so it’s not something that they can be talked into.     So this isn’t a letter to ISOC. Their part is done. Likewise Ethos. The parties with decisions still to make are ICANN and the Pennsylvania courts.  ICANN has to approve the transfer of control, and the Pennsylvania courts have to approve the repurposing of nonprofit assets to a for-profit purpose.                       -Bill     On Dec 7, 2019, at 16:36, Ayden Férdeline wrote:  I do not want to be seen as holding up the consensus here, as ideally I also want the sale stopped.   I just am not convinced that ISOC will listen to us - their current Board has made it abundantly clear that their priority was stabilizing/diversifying ISOC's revenue, and that they do not consider PIR to have been an extension of their charitable mission. This is at odds with comments from past Trustees, but ultimately we are dealing with the current board and what they think.   Strategically I think it is better then to allow the ISOC Board some way to back away from the deal without losing too much face. I do not think Ethos Capital would agree to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation, however if we pressure ISOC into making that a condition of sale in order to safeguard the interests of registrants, it could be one way for the Board to back away when Ethos inevitably refuses?   Best wishes,   Ayden Férdeline       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:12 PM, Sheetal Kumar wrote:   Dear all,   Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale unless certain conditions are met.   Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with that.     Best Sheetal   On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions.   It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a disaster.   I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its decision here.   All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a non-profit entity and a for-profit entity.   They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than meeting the public interest elements of their charter.   I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their comments.   So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing.   If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain protections in place for registrants.   PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants.   The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we can ask for at present.   If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires.   ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind.   If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants.   Best wishes,   Ayden Férdeline       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:     Dear Sheetal,   I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement.   I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder.   Few comments: I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... in any case... We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC....    Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests to claim.some kind of notional support board...    I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep   = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =    To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.   Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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. This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. [IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. [IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing billions..] We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. [IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they accepted it?] Large parts of the world [IAS: I suggest that here we have to use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members [IAS: I suggest that we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners or perhaps including CSCG] are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be [IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have been assured”] an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today. We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. [IAS: I suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good. = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =   [IAS: I also have few more concerns: 1.       Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to re-establish of the trust being shacked): i.                     the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?, ii.                   the reasoning behind the avoidance of engaging a proper bidding?, iii.                  the reasoning to giving sole power of decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and opening comments to sell or not?, iv.                 the information of intention disclosure regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies (prior/during/post sales agreement). v.                   Technical Terms and basis of the Technical Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, Dependability. vi.                 Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)   2.       I would suggest that the statement should be in the following format: Preamble/Preface paragraph: Objection/Obligation/Concerns What we demand: Our First Requirement is: Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural design/basis/planning) Our Second Requirement is: A.      The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due diligence process and stop the deal. If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. B.      What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure the commitment a.       Immediate commitment (prior to sale), b.      long term commitment (after sales), (by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the agreements with ISOC stands?)  = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =   Best Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah   [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil]   On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter wrote:     I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to the strong basic argument.   Ian   ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sheetal Kumar" To: "parminder" Cc: "governance" Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale   Dear Ayden, Parminder, all,   First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the IGC.   I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to be able to weigh in.   To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text.   Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these points that would be helpful.   - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale. - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day   It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level.   I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has alternative ideas please let us know.   Best Sheetal   On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder wrote: thanks for this effort Ayden But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? parminder On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Dear all,   I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces.   Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach here.   Thanks and best wishes, Ayden Férdeline   To:    Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet Society   As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.     Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.   This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification.    Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and commitments it is making today.   We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar wrote:   Dear Ayden, all,   Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks.   What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others?     As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:     - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital?   We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet.         On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline wrote: While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously.   ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks.   Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote:   These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board.     Sent from my iPhone   On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote:    Dear all,   What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions.   It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below:     When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:     - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital   Best Sheetal   On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: Hi all,   Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit :   > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M   None of the above parses.  Please try again, with simpler construction.  You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you.   ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ?   Shalom, --sb.                                     -Bill       --         -- Best Regards !                          baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE|‪#‎Romains15:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU de ‪#‎Paix soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen!» ‪#‎MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2)     --- To unsubscribe: List help:     --         Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|   --- To unsubscribe: List help:       --       Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|       ---To unsubscribe: List help:   --- To unsubscribe: List help:     --       Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|   --- To unsubscribe: List help:       --       Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|     --- To unsubscribe: List help:   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2050 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD151.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bzs at theworld.com Sun Dec 8 00:35:26 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 00:35:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> References: <-bsOUQ9kMsb7SIyAROcxELIdnteQSzhZJTKYeoOa8z8JuboKZfrcxSfEXrKq5ik4hSeoebz5rTguf9Bkpo8JAe4tVsCogBTkClvMihrprpw=@ferdeline.com> <06ce01d5ad67$beea98e0$3cbfcaa0$@palage.com> Message-ID: <24044.35742.912681.76290@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Phfft, attorney fees are chump change in a deal this. My point of information is the letter says "we", who exactly is "we" because I think if I were the recipient that would be about the first thing I'd look at. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 8 00:47:19 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 11:17:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale In-Reply-To: References: <7d859943-e03f-4f99-4878-9dc3a18a3cc6@itforchange.net> <156860941.3814567.1575634651047@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 07/12/19 2:17 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and questions. > > It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be a > disaster. > > I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change its > decision here. And, Aydene, you really think that there is not already an agreement/ understanding between Ethos and ISOC about what status PIR will change to, and the bid amount contingent upon it? At such crunch times civil society groups need to go by principles, not by the always sliding scales of pragmatism. It is true that civil society groups are not often listened to, but they will be listened to even less if they keep catering to (artificially created) concerns of immediate plausibility against principles. We should just put forward a 'no sale' demand -- it is up to 'them' to heed it fully, half-way (for instance the benefit corp route), or not at all.. parminder > > All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make > indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a > non-profit entity and a for-profit entity. > > They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and > believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than > meeting the public interest elements of their charter. > > I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of their > comments. > > So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was proposing. > > If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down > (nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely held > by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we need to > put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there being certain > protections in place for registrants. > > PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC may > have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for this to > happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, > and it will be required to increase wholesale costs on .ORG domain > names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has said they have no > intention of operating PIR differently going forward, this is not > consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role is to maximize > shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the best interest of > the corporation – not .ORG registrants. > > The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just the > fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR incorporated as > a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B Certification, which is what > we are being offered at the moment). I think that is the best thing we > can ask for at present. > > If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if PIR > is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term > assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal > impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can be > dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires. > > ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to > consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, > non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The > Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I don't > see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel ISOC to > listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it is > essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance > deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the future, > particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. But the Board > wants the money, and unless someone else steps forward offering more, > they seem unwilling to change their mind. > > If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what > little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is likely > to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline >   > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > >> >> Dear Sheetal, >> >> I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our statement. >> >> I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the initial >> draft of Ayden and copying hereunder. >> >> Few comments: >> I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of Money.... >> in any case... >> We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures. >> Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference of >> the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the dotOrg to >> ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if the ISOC has >> gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should have to be >> returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some other similar >> not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations working for Public >> Interests, having the capacity to over see the Internet in Public >> domain and public interest.... to benefit next one after ISOC....  >> >> Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into the >> hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if they >> could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members or can >> employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public interests >> to claim.some kind of notional support board...  >> >> I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with the >> points shared by you... https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep >> >> = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = = >> >>  /To: Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet >> Society/ >> >> /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by >> the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the >> Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), >> including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.  / >> >> /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private >> entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken >> ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining >> non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a >> counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, >> and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level >> domains are run by private companies with purely financial >> objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times >> overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are >> significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, >> could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >> and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave >> ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role >> in shaping Internet infrastructure //[IAS: suggest to add here… >> “keeping the Public Interest Intact”]//. In relinquishing its control >> over PIR, ISOC loses 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./ >> >> /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >> community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate >> safeguards in place to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >> registrants and the people who visit their websites every day. _You >> have the ability to put requests to Ethos Capital and to call this >> deal off if appropriate and binding safeguards cannot be put in >> place_//.////[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps >> diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer “thanks >> for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate at this >> stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from ICANN Chair >> in 2009]//We encourage you to do just that.//[IAS: What to do, to >> stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change this sentence >> and to be specific result that we are recommending or demanding] //As >> a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to >> incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. //[IAS: again we are >> allowing them to proceed with the deal and seeking the alteration of >> the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment of a commercial entity to keep >> this public interest entity protected as a benefit organization…? >> Secondly, believing and understanding that the Investor “Ethos >> Capital” has invested the PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity >> how we assume that he will be accepting when he has investing >> billions..] //We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are >> evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same thing as >> a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding certification. >> //[IAS: I suggest that we should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital >> has intention to transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ >> commercial entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ >> that is this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge >> of decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity >> will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they >> accepted it?]/ >> >> /_Large parts of the world_////[IAS: I suggest that here we have to >> use other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of >> the ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections >> are not reported from the majority of users, which means the majority >> of the users has no concern who is running the registry”]//are >> uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by commercial >> interests, and _many of our members_ //[IAS: I suggest that we have >> to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition Partners >> or perhaps including CSCG] //are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being >> sold at all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could >> provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell the >> assets of PIR, and could be //[IAS: I suggest rephrase “Could have >> been assured”] //an effective means of mitigating against some of the >> risks that we can foresee emerging from this sale. A benefit >> corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the publication >> of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual >> reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the >> organization to consider benefits to the public in addition to profit >> when decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to >> honor the promises and commitments it is making today./ >> >> /We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos >> Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information >> about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to >> investors, the non-profit and non-governmental communities require >> assurances that the future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names >> that we use for our email, websites, campaigns, and fundraising >> efforts are in safe hands. //[IAS: I suggest add these lines here >> “Our Data & Privacy is not being compromised, shared, observed, >> monitored are not shared or sold to the competitors (right now during >> transition or) in future by the Registry, or partner commercial/ >> noncommercial entities”] //These are more than just domains, they are >> symbols of our desire to do good./ >> >> = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = >> = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = =   >> >> /[IAS: I also have few more concerns:/ >> >> /1.       //Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to >> re-establish of the trust being shacked):/ >> >> /i.                     //the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out >> of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,/ >> >> /ii.                   //the reasoning behind the avoidance of >> engaging a proper bidding?,/ >> >> /iii.                  //the reasoning to giving sole power of >> decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition and >> opening comments to sell or not?,/ >> >> /iv.                 //the information of intention disclosure >> regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to >> B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies >> (prior/during/post sales agreement)./ >> >> /v.                   //Technical Terms and basis of the Technical >> Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, >> Dependability./ >> >> /vi.                 //Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public >> Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated before >> making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)/ >> >> / / >> >> /2.       //I would suggest that the statement should be in the >> following format:/ >> >> Preamble/Preface paragraph: >> >> Objection/Obligation/Concerns >> >> What we demand: >> >> Our First Requirement is: >> >> Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ >> agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural >> design/basis/planning) >> >> Our Second Requirement is: >> >> A.      The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the due >> diligence process and stop the deal. >> >> If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and >> but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve >> minimal goal-B after the adoption of above…. >> >> B.      What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. ensure >> the commitment >> >> a.       Immediate commitment (prior to sale), >> >> b.      long term commitment (after sales), >> >> /(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization >> remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. >> Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not beyond. >> Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any other >> commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where the >> agreements with ISOC stands?)/ >> >>  = = = = = = == = = =  = = == = = == = = = = = = =  = = == = = == = = = >> >> Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> [TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil] >> >> On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> >> >> I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the >> human rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great >> value to the strong basic argument. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Sheetal Kumar" > > >> To: "parminder" > > >> Cc: "governance" > > >> Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale >> >>> Dear Ayden, Parminder, all, >>> >>> First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I >>> appreciate the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are >>> clearly present in the IGC. >>> >>> I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this >>> list. This may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll >>> if its helpful to gather views, including whether people feel they >>> need more information to be able to weigh in. >>> >>> To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we >>> need to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text. >>> >>> Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on >>> these points that would be helpful. >>> >>> * There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale >>> * There are potential implications for human rights if the sale >>> goes through (need to list/clearly enumerate these) >>> * As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the >>> statements from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright >>> halt to the sale. >>> * At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater >>> transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of >>> this sale, and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to >>> protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and >>> the people who visit their websites every day >>> >>> >>> It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a >>> tricky issue and if we want to put forward something together we >>> might need to go with what we can all agree on at a top-level. >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone >>> has alternative ideas please let us know. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> thanks for this effort Ayden >>> >>> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out >>> there, it will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society >>> groups to say, well, at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did >>> not .... Why ask Ethos to set PIR as a benefit corporation >>> (which they will certainly not) when the existing arrangement >>> (since the sale is not through) is itself more satisfactory? Why >>> not ask for status quo and stopping the sale? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider >>>> issuing. Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a >>>> starting point (thank you!) but I am afraid I did change the >>>> messaging quite a bit. This is just a suggestion and please do >>>> feel free to edit it to pieces. >>>> >>>> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the >>>> sale altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a >>>> number of posts on this list that seem supportive of the sale, >>>> I've tried a different approach here. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best wishes, >>>> Ayden Férdeline >>>> >>>> /To://    //Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, >>>> Internet Society/ >>>> >>>> >>>> /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>> organizations and public interest technologists, we are >>>> concerned by the announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring >>>> the assets of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) from the >>>> Internet Society (ISOC), including the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG >>>> Registry Agreements.  / >>>> >>>> >>>> /Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a >>>> private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System >>>> and weaken ISOC. PIR played an important role, as the only >>>> remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in >>>> serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. >>>> PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, >>>> whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies >>>> with purely financial objectives. While the interests of >>>> companies and users do at times overlap, they can also >>>> conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human >>>> rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of ISOC, could be >>>> relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, >>>> and has a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also >>>> gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an >>>> active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In >>>> relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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./ >>>> >>>> >>>> /This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet >>>> community, and we are not yet satisfied that there are >>>> appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests of >>>> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their >>>> websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to >>>> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and >>>> binding safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to >>>> do just that. As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have >>>> Ethos Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit >>>> corporation. We understand that Ethos Capital has said they are >>>> evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is not the same >>>> thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding >>>> certification. / >>>> >>>> >>>> /Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet >>>> being governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of >>>> our members are deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at >>>> all. However, incorporation as a benefit corporation could >>>> provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does proceed to sell >>>> the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of >>>> mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee >>>> emerging from this sale. A benefit corporation in the right >>>> jurisdiction would require the publication of comprehensive, >>>> credible, independent, and transparent annual reports on social >>>> impact and, most importantly, require the organization to >>>> consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when >>>> decisions are being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to >>>> honor the promises and commitments it is making today./ >>>> >>>> / / >>>> >>>> /We trust that you understand why this is important to us. >>>> Ethos Capital is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear >>>> information about their motives behind acquiring PIR and their >>>> sales pitch to investors, the non-profit and non-governmental >>>> communities require assurances that the future of the .ORG, >>>> .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email, >>>> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. >>>> These are more than just domains, they are symbols of our >>>> desire to do good./ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Ayden, all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going >>>>> to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we >>>>> can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the >>>>> below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks. >>>>> >>>>> What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking >>>>> about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) >>>>> and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have >>>>> any others? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial >>>>> organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency >>>>> regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale >>>>> of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the >>>>> due diligence process:   / >>>>> >>>>> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the >>>>> existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing >>>>> rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to >>>>> ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on >>>>> behalf of the public interest and the world community of >>>>> noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >>>>> - What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations >>>>> engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding >>>>> possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship >>>>> to Ethos capital?/ >>>>> // >>>>> /We request answers to these questions in the spirit of >>>>> building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency >>>>> more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the >>>>> Internet./ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of >>>>> Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the >>>>> ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not >>>>> respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and >>>>> I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take >>>>> these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. >>>>> >>>>> ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the >>>>> perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who >>>>> are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more >>>>> transparent about what due diligence it did before >>>>> entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what >>>>> mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, >>>>> .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline >>>>>   >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>>> On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>  >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN >>>>>>> Board with a series of questions in order to get more >>>>>>> transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to >>>>>>> others, and are wondering what you think of this >>>>>>> approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as >>>>>>> part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be >>>>>>> a constructive approach to request they consider and >>>>>>> answer certain questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be great to hear your views on this approach >>>>>>> and on the questions. See below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request >>>>>>> that these questions are considered in the due diligence >>>>>>> process:   / >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect >>>>>>> the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >>>>>>> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve >>>>>>> existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the >>>>>>> Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward >>>>>>> of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and >>>>>>> the world community of noncommercial, civil society >>>>>>> groups in the world? >>>>>>> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those >>>>>>> organizations engaged in missions of "public interest >>>>>>> around the world?" >>>>>>> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns >>>>>>> regarding possible conflict of interest in transference >>>>>>> of stewardship to Ethos capital/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> Sheetal// >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock >>>>>>> > a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > they can (even without sourcing their >>>>>>> affirmation) then note that the >>>>>>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet >>>>>>> Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>>>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Why ? >>>>>>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> >>>>>>> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>>>> > the pressure of commercial world in the >>>>>>> Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>>>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the above parses.  Please try again, >>>>>>> with simpler construction.  You can break it out >>>>>>> into as many sentences as you like, but please >>>>>>> try to make each one encapsulate exactly one >>>>>>> thought.  Else nobody is going to be able to >>>>>>> engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>>>>>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shalom, >>>>>>> --sb. >>>>>>>   >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>                                 -Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best Regards !                          >>>>>>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | >>>>>>> | >>>>>>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ >>>>>>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«/Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ >>>>>>> de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!/» >>>>>>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. >>>>>>> #Chrétiennement‬ >>>>>>> «/Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, >>>>>>> ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!/» >>>>>>> (#Psaumes42:2) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D >>>>>>> 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> > >>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>> E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: