[governance] [Second Statement] Letter to ICANN Board re: ISOC/PIR sale

[Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)]

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.2 <
https://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/*
> <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*
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591>
>
> *[3] **https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-interest-registry>
>
> *[7] **https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab*
> <https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab>* and *
> *https://savedotorg.org/* <https://savedotorg.org/>
>
> *[8] Netherlands (*
> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html*
> <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html>*),
> Switzerland (*
> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html*
> <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html>*),
> Portugal (*
> *https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021427.html*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <https://www.ft.com/content/08066a5a-11b2-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a>
>
> *[12] **https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824*
> <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/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*
> <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf>
>
> *[15] On their website (**https://www.keypointsabout.org/*
> <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/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*
> <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*
> <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 <ayden at ferdeline.com
> mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com <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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191212/8ed733a3/attachment.htm>