[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

Fri Dec 20 10:15:59 EST 2019

Please list my name as someone who does not support this letter.

Thanks.

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi Sheetal –
>
>
>
> Like Judith – please list my name on the web-site as an individual that
> does not support this letter.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Jane
>
>
>
> *From: *<governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Judith
> Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com>
> *Reply-To: *Judith Hellerstein <judith at jhellerstein.com>
> *Date: *Friday, December 20, 2019 at 9:10 AM
> *To: *Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
> *Cc: *IGCaucus <governance at lists.riseup.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
>
>
>
> Hi Sheetal
>
> So as I understand your email, in the website you are going to list the
> igc members who did not support this letter. If that is the correct
> assumption than please list my name
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Judith
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Judith at jhellerstein.com
>
> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The letter which was sent has been circulating for some weeks now, and I
> also sent the version that was sent to this list at least two days prior to
> sending it. I am therefore not sure why the objections are being raised now
> and were not raised before. However, please do let Bruna and I know why
> this has happened. If it is inadequate communication, an unclear process or
> a lack of time for inputting then this is something we'll rectify going
> forward.
>
>
>
> However, what I suggest is that the letter is published on the website,
> and we can list objections there. I would also suggest we list the names of
> all members somewhere else on the website.
>
>
>
> Does this approach sound agreeable to everyone?
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Sheetal
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:25, Carlos Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is
> *consensus* in the caucus.
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 20/12/2019 03:57, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 8:22 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> a
> écrit :
> >>
> >> Sheetal:
> >>
> >> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in
> line below:
> >
> > Dear Milton,
> > Hope you are well.
> >
> > Thanks for your email, even if i totally disagree :-)
> >
> > For me, the IGC is in its right to sign exactly this letter and
> > public it somewhere at <IGCaucus.ORG>/letters.
> >
> > We have waste too much time until now and i don't want to
> > imagine why...
> >
> > Please let me know how you feel with the followings issues.
> >
> > ~°~
> > ...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  (FotP) (or Let's go for a
> > Free commons PIR - cPIR ?)
> > • (Conflicting) Rejuvenation Process for a better
> > Future of the InternetSociety.ORG (FotIS)
> > • (Conflicting) Impacts in the Future of the Internet (FotI)
> > •—
> > ~°~
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Shalom,
> > --sb.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Subject: Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: Odd. How would $1.135 billion weaken ISOC? How would the transfer
> of control of one medium-size TLD registry significantly alter the DNS? The
> letter loses credibility right off the bat by making claims that cannot be
> backed up.
> >>
> >> PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial
> top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against
> commercial exploitation.
> >>
> >> MM: Really? Aside from its annual support for NCUC (which was a
> fulfillment of the obligation in the original RFP), there was no meaningful
> difference between the way PIR was run and most other gTLD registries was
> run, both in terms of pricing and service. This observation both unfairly
> casts aspersions on all commercial registries while falsely idealizing PIR.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: Again, can you cite specific differences in behavior? And do you
> believe that if ISOC/PIR are forced to continue running ORG even if they
> don’t want to that things will be better?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: Yeah, that’s why it advocated for an end to price caps, added URS,
> and toyed with intellectual property takedown procedures.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: This is a pretty absurd claim, it amounts to the IGC thinking that
> it knows what is good for ISOC better than ISOC’s trustees and staff do.
> This also shows a lack of knowledge. Running one TLD registry out of 2000
> with less than 5% share of world registrations does not really do much to
> “shape internet infrastructure.” Supporting IETF shapes internet
> infrastructure, running ORG does not. It also ignores ISOC’s somewhat valid
> concern that tying their finances to a particular line of business distorts
> their objectivity regarding the future of the internet.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: This focus on the machinations around the sale totally misses the
> target. We want forward-looking information and commitments: we want Ethos
> to tell us how they will fulfill the obligations in the 2002 RFP and we
> want them to make new commitments, embedded in the Registry Agreement, that
> will protect ORG registrants.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> MM: Again I cannot understand this morbid fascination with ISOC’s
> decision making process and the absence of a forward-looking agenda. Demand
> something meaningful, please! Wish IGC had paid more attention to advice
> from those of us actually active within the DNS policy environment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> >> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
> [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
>
> Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
> ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> *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|
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> <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>
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191220/ff0b4eff/attachment.htm>