[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[John Levine]

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