[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

Wed Dec 11 13:15:38 EST 2019

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 <parminder at itforchange.net> 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 [<ayden at ferdeline.com>](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 [<parminder at itforchange.net>](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 [<parminder at itforchange.net>](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 [<governance at lists.riseup.net>](mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le dim. 8 déc. 2019 9:19 PM, John Levine <icggov at johnlevine.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <[CAJjTEvFXJ+ZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p+O_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com](mailto:CAJjTEvFXJ%2BZLsdLwYF2vMkChKizoZ9RKN7p%2BO_Bj52yiAn858g at mail.gmail.com)> you write:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><hxxps://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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>](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>
>>>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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>
>
> --
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191211/f926b9a0/attachment.htm>