[governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19

[Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)]

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, <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/
>>
>> [...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191216/18bb815f/attachment.htm>