[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Dec 20 12:22:20 EST 2019
Jane
Sorry for me to ask, but are you an ISOC staff?
parminder
On 20/12/19 8:28 PM, Jane Coffin 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 <mailto:Judith at jhellerstein.com>
>
> Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <http://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 <http://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
> <http://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
> <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>
> 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/20191220/c612280f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list