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

Fri Dec 20 10:59:17 EST 2019

Hi Sylvain,

Thanks ever so much for your comments. Please see in-line below.

Best wishes,

Ayden

P.S. On an aside, I am about to be on vacation, so I will (try to) be offline from tomorrow through 2 January. I suspect others may be disconnecting then too. So it may make more sense to pick up this letter again in January and assess/re-assess the state of play whether this letter is still timely and relevant. Thanks!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, December 20, 2019 1:33 PM, Sylvain Baya <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Please see my.comments below (inline)...
>
> 2019-12-19 14:30 UTC+01:00, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Thanks for all of the comments and suggested edits on this second statement,
>
> Dear Ayden
> Many thanks for the useful editorial's work.

Thank you, it has been my pleasure.

>
> > this time addressed to the ICANN Board. I've made a few revisions to our
> > statement in light of your comments.
>
> ...again thanks !
>
> > There was one change I did not make,
> > and I'd like to explain why. I personally felt uncomfortable including a
> > link to the 2001 Board resolution that was shared in this thread, as I can't
> > be certain that it was not later retracted. The ICANN website does not make
> > it easy for me to cross-reference the status of a resolution (though I did
> > try), and I think there is a possibility that the resolution in question
> > only lasted a few months.
>
> ...let me try to clarify something :
>
> •—
> • i have double-checked all the links suggested :-)
> • where i have proposed a replacement for a link, the
> contents and location of the two links were compared first.
> • So, you don't have to be afraid, because i did the work.
> That should be exactly the way, this Caucus works :
> someones are actively working for the community. For
> instance : you are doing the editorial work for us. Thanks!
> • Please replace all the links i have suggested :

My apologies, I missed these. I can update the links accordingly.

> Exemples :
> Replace this
> “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives:
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy”
> by this
> “[13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives :
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/date.html#start”
> Also, below, the link imply they should check all the criteria,
> but the only relevant is criterion 7
> “[16] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm”
> so
> “[16] https://archive.icann.org/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7”
> •—
>
> > As it could cause embarrassment if we relied on
> > something not in effect, I think it better not to include it.
>
> ...eh ! i disagree Ayden :-)
>
> > But if I am wrong, and the resolution is in effect, please let me know.
>
> ...i have started to explain it above, and i can add that :
> It is not our role to verify more, if something published as minutes of
> an Org is no longer applicable. If it was the case it would have been
> easy to check (i guess). Simply because they adopted the draft as it
> was ; then they published in various location (minutes, news, blog,...)
> and I prefer the minutes and the source of the document the minutes
> have indicated. Same contents, but remember what the Secretary of
> InternetSociety.ORG have said : I don't know where this for and by come,
> it's just a blog... Thank GOD ! we have the direct source now : the April 2001
> minutes ;-)

This is where I tend to disagree. I think it is our job to get the facts right. ICANN might not make it easy, but they can discredit out letter (and by extension, us) if we are not factual. I am pretty certain that these Board resolutions were repealed or retracted or not in force several months later. I can (and will) try to confirm this hunch in early January, but I think it is important we only include information that is accurate.

>
> [*]: see section D.1 & D.2
> https://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
>
> [**]:https://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02apr01.htm
>
> > The latest draft of our statement is pasted below my name.
> > Thanks again for all your input!
>
> Please consider my comments above.
>
> Hope this could help.
> Thanks.

It does help. Thank you!

>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Ayden Férdeline
> >
> > ================
> >
> > 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 and
> > others of a non-commercial character who did not fit within the definitions
> > of the original top-level domains like .COM, .GOV, or .EDU. 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]
> > The community that .NGO and .ONG are intended to serve is 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 should ISOC persist in its desire to separate itself from PIR.
> > 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]
> > Ethos Capital would be welcome to bid for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG as part of
> > the tender process, as would other more experienced operators, and
> > co-operatives of non-profits and other public interest groups. 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] 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.[1615]
> > If ICANN does not exercise its right to withhold approval of the transfer of
> > assets the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements 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, lack of content neutrality guarantees, 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[1716]) 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[1817], 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 letter. We are
> > available to answer any clarifying questions.
> > About the Internet Governance Caucus
> > The Internet Governance Caucus is composed of 500 individual members. Please
> > see more information on the Internet Governance Caucus here:
> > https://igcaucus.org/igc-charter/
> > [1]
> > 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
> > [3] https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2001-03-01-en
> > [4]
> > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/registry-agmt-org-2001-05-25-en#5.1.4
> > [5]
> > 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
> > [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and
> > https://savedotorg.org/
> > [8] Netherlands
> > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html),
> > Switzerland
> > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html),
> > Portugal
> > (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
> > [10]
> > 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
> > [12] https://twitter.com/timberners_lee/status/1199752059534413824
> > [13] See correspondence in November 2019 archives:
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy
> > [14] See page 10,
> > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf
> > [15] On their website (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.
> > [1516] https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm
> > [1617] Page 16,
> > https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2018-Annual-Report.pdf.
> > [1718]
> > https://www.wsj.com/articles/nonprofits-fear-cost-of-org-domain-names-will-rise-sharply-11574283751
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On Monday, December 16, 2019 9:22 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron
> > governance at lists.riseup.net wrote:
> >
> > > I support the message
> > > Aaron
> > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 20:18 Sylvain Baya, governance at lists.riseup.net
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.2https://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/
> > > > > [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591
> > > > > [3] 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
> > > >
> > > > ...what a great find !
> > > >
> > > > > [5]
> > > > > 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
> > > > > [7] https://www.change.org/p/internet-society-stop-the-org-land-grab and
> > > > > https://savedotorg.org/
> > > > > [8] Netherlands
> > > > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021391.html),
> > > > > Switzerland
> > > > > (https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/chapter-delegates/2019-November/021404.html),
> > > > > Portugal
> > > > > (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
> > > > > [10]
> > > > > 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
> > > > > [12] 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/private/internetpolicy/2019-November/author.html#start
> > > >
> > > > > [14] See page 10,
> > > > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf
> > > > > [15] On their website (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/tlds/org/criteria.htm#7
> > > >
> > > > > [17] Page 16,
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> > > > List help: https://riseup.net/lists
>
> --
>
> Best Regards !
> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | https://www.cmnog.cm |
> https://survey.cmnog.cm
> Subscribe to Mailing List : https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/
>
> __
> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec
> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
> après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe: mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
> List help: https://riseup.net/lists