[governance] PIR and ETHOS Convene Community Webinar on 12/19
Brett Solomon
brett at accessnow.org
Thu Dec 19 10:13:30 EST 2019
Here are a few responses to those who responded to my email from Tuesday:
*George — *
We are very much in agreement about the fact that the lack of transparency
from both Ethos Capital and ISOC are cause for concern. I can't agree with
you, though, in saying that a deal to fund ISOC's future work at the
expense of the stability of the rest of civil society organizations at
.ORG is a "greater good" or a "more important objective." To both your and
Tapani's point, the issue at stake here is so much bigger than the
"emotional benefit" of contributing registration fees to a non-profit. It's
about being able to trust — and hold accountable — the entity that is
responsible for the stewardship of the non commercial element of the
internet. See also my response to John and Milton below re the capacity or
likelihood of Ethos performing that function.
*John —*
I'm consolidating my response to your separate comments here in this
thread. I can see how you, as a member of the ISOC board, might be
particularly inclined to overlook the potential long-term externalities of
this deal and focus on its short-term benefit for ISOC. There are dozens of
letters, articles and reports setting out those concerns and potential
harms. But in considering whether this transfer serves the interests of the
whole .ORG community, I agree with you that we must "look at motivations
and costs and benefits."
The motivations of a well-established nonprofit organization like ISOC and
those of a newly formed, untested for-profit entity like Ethos are
fundamentally different. And even if we can reasonably accept Ethos'
assurances that it has the public interest at heart, because its profit
model depends on it, there are no guarantees that calculus would not shift
in response to the intervention of governments or other private actors.
Exactly how much profit would make it worth it for Ethos — or another
private owner down the resale line — to hand over registrants' sensitive
data, impose discriminatory content or pricing policies, censor dissident
voices, etc.? Parminder is right. Especially considering Ethos was formed
as a shell for this sale, its interests in maintaining the integrity of
.ORG in a resale are even more slim, since it would likely dissolve
following a resale and have no concerns about reputational cost. If you
don't think Ethos is going to resell PIR at some point, then I suggest you
take a look at other billion dollar 'commodities' in the marketplace.
And if there really is no motivation to undertake future actions that would
be harmful to .ORG registrants, there should be no issue in agreeing to
binding protections that would prevent such harms from coming about, but we
have yet to see anything of the sort emerge.
*Any talk of Ethos/PIR stewardship councils or advisory bodies are red
herrings and should be rejected outright.* No matter what Ethos tell us
today, such entities are toothless, will have only an advisory capacity and
likely will be ignored (like most powerless advisory councils that disagree
with those who are seeking to be advised).
*Milton —*
First and foremost, thank you for all your work with the NCSG on this
issue. It's a strong letter, and Access Now looks forward to supporting it.
The call for ICANN to impose stronger safeguards for the .ORG TLD
highlighted in the letter is extremely important, and complementary to the
call (supported by 175+ organizations) for ISOC to stop the sale to Ethos.
To be clear, I don't think anyone is calling for the sale to be stopped as
their only objective. I am certainly not. Rather, it is the first, and most
urgent, call among several, targeting one of several actors involved.
ICANN's intervention to improve protections for .ORG is another very
important goal, as is Article 7.5 of the Agreement. Again, ISOC should
reverse the decision and if not ICANN should prevent it from proceeding.
ISOC has done a (largely) great and unrecognized job to date on stewarding
.ORG. While we might agree or disagree that is desirable to relieve ISOC of
what has apparently become a unwanted burden of overseeing PIR, it is
imperative to keep PIR's management in the nonprofit community (and my
strong preference is for it to remain in the hands of .ORG), particularly
under the terms of the current Registry Agreement with ICANN. Ayden is
absolutely right in saying that, with or without those new safeguards, the
sale is dangerous and should not be allowed to continue.
I am concerned where .ORG will be 2020 but I am much more concerned where
it will be 2025. Once .ORG is allowed to transfer to private sector
control, it will inevitably become a commodity that, with time, makes its
way into the hands of those who stand to gain from its control and are
willing the pay the price to have it — that could be the Saudi or Chinese
governments, or Novalpina Capital. Once .ORG is transitioned to the private
sector, we as civil society would almost surely never get it back. The sale
should be stopped and amendments should be made to the Registry Agreement
to upgrade ICANN processes and ORG’s original RFP.
Brett
Brett Solomon
Executive Director
Access Now | 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 Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:22 AM Wisdom Donkor <governance at lists.riseup.net>
wrote:
> +1 also,
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 5:36 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> +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> <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/> <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> <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> <https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1> with a donation today
>> Brett Solomon
>> Executive Director
>> Access Now | accessnow.org <https://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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ <http://www.georgesadowsky.org/> <http://www.georgesadowsky.org/>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <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> <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> <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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191219/dadfda5a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list