[governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Dec 19 00:36:03 EST 2019
+1
Tapani, you put it extremely well, and pithily. That is the core issue.
Those who believe that everything can be reduced to money and market
mechanisms are generally recognised as neoliberal. A very big part of
the global civil society is strongly in opposition to that sentiment,
and it also attracts popular resentment.
We believe that many resources are better managed in non-profit forms,
and .org historically and by its nature is one such. It is not a matter
of financial soundness, or even transparency of the deal, much less what
is Ethos is ready to commit. Ethos came into existence just for making
money out of this community asset, FB was a very well established
company when it took over whatsapp and made a commitment that it will
not cross-use the two companies' data sets, and in a few years they
fully went back on that promise and nothing could be done about it. How
are Ethos's commitments more trustworthy, that is even if one supposes
that everything that we need and expect from .org being managed
primarily in the community's interest can actually be put as a list of
upfront demands -- they cannot be.
parminder
On 18/12/19 6:33 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
>
> "What registrants and supporters have lost is the emotional benefit of
> being a part of a not-for-profit community and helping to support
> causes in that community in which they believe."
>
> Exactly.
>
> For many people the issue isn't about money per se, but knowing that
> the profits from their .org registration go to a good cause rather
> than to some unknown shareholders' only interested in money is the
> thing that matters.
>
> That's something that really cannot be measured with money.
>
> I guess one of the key divides here is that some people don't
> understand that - indeed some seem to believe that everything, or at
> least everything that matters in this context, can be measured with
> money, whereas for others that exact idea is an anathema to be fought
> at all costs.
>
> Tapani
>
>
> On Dec 17 12:42, George Sadowsky (governance at lists.riseup.net) wrote:
>
>> Brett,
>>
>> I don't know what the outcome of this issue will be. If the sale goes through, there will be a healing period, perhaps long and perhaps destructive for ISOC. I do express my hope that whatever happens, ISOC's goals and activities will not be negatively impacted. But I admit that I do not know.
>>
>> I would rather that the sale not have proceeded, and certainly not in the way that it did. But I am willing to live with a decision that I don't like (it wouldn't be the first time) if a greater good depended on it, and I will support the more important objective even though I don't like the decision.
>>
>> The outstanding issue in my mind is focused on the extent to which the .org registrants feel that they have lost something really valuable in the transaction. Now I know that .org is just another registry, albeit a very well run one, from a technical point of view. What registrants and supporters have lost is the emotional benefit of being a part of a not-for-profit community and helping to support causes in that community in which they believe. If thatsense can be preserved and even strengthened, I think that dissenters to the transaction will ultimately be satisfied. But at present we have no knowledge of what Ethos' plans are, and there is unlikely to be any binding commitment until the situation is impossible to reverse. It's a lousy state of affairs, and the sooner that Ethos is willing to say something, the better.
>>
>> I am more inclined than most to trust what they say, but they are not saying much at all, and I can well understand the frustration of those who complain.
>>
>> George
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> George et al,
>>>
>>> I started this email a few days back and it was in my inbox but I wanted to send it even though this is an old thread.
>>>
>>> I agree ISOC is an important and valued organization. One that many of us partner with, have trusted over numerous years and have respected for its contribution. However you conclusions are very far from where I sit. In fact I contend the opposite:
>>>
>>> The future of ISOC depends not on selling PIR but on maintaining it - this sorry episode has so significantly damaged ISOC's reputation, that the worst thing it could do now is to proceed. It should reverse its decision, rebuild trust with the community and continue to implement its mission.
>>>
>>> You say - 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. I think that the future of PIR should be our primary concern, and a side product of protecting it and .ORG, is to ensure the future of ISOC.
>>>
>>> A sale will result in the destabilization of .ORG and the 10 million registrants and risks destroying ISOC in the process.
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>> Brett Solomon
>>> Executive Director
>>> Access Now | accessnow.org <https://accessnow.org/>
>>>
>>> @solomonbrett
>>> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
>>> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
>>>
>>> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express <https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up>, our weekly newsletter on digital rights
>>> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now <https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1> with a donation today
>>> Brett Solomon
>>> Executive Director
>>> Access Now | accessnow.org <https://accessnow.org/>
>>>
>>> @solomonbrett
>>> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
>>> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
>>>
>>> *Subscribe to the Access Now Express <https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up>, our weekly newsletter on digital rights
>>> *Protect digital rights around the world - support Access Now <https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1> with a donation today
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com <mailto:ayden at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> I am afraid I don't share your optimism. But I appreciate the attempt at moving us forward to somewhere a little less combative.
>>>
>>> I think this webinar is premature. Yes, it is helpful to have more of a dialogue with Ethos Capital. But unless they are coming forward with actual plans - not hypotheticals, not ideas, not 'listening' for feedback - this webinar will just be another hour of uncertainty. What we need now is real information. We need to know what legal entity PIR will be becoming, what it's bylaws will say, what it's business model is, what the pitch to investors was. We don't want nor can we accept more open-ended statements or breakable promises.
>>>
>>> If, as a show of good faith, Ethos does start disclosing that information, then I agree we might be able to move forward and discuss the role of this advisory council. But absent this information, being well-intentioned isn't enough. When we're dealing with a newly-created shell company, we need real assurances for the future.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Friday, December 13, 2019 5:28 AM, George Sadowsky <governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto: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 <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com> http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ <http://www.georgesadowsky.org/>
>>>>
>>> ---
>>> 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>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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/20191219/d39bdcc9/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list