[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Dec 8 00:54:25 EST 2019
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
> <ayden at ferdeline.com> 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 <woody at pch.net> 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 <ayden at ferdeline.com> 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 <ayden at ferdeline.com
>>>>> <mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com>> 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
>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>> <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
>>>>>>>> <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] |
>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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:
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>>>>>>> <mailto: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: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>>>>>> <mailto: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: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191208/8ffa3e6a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list