[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

Sun Dec 22 14:53:22 EST 2019

Hi Parminder, Jacqueline and others,

I am writing on a personal basis here, not representing the Brazilian chapter of ISOC, nor the institute I work with (Nupef) or any other organization.

Responding to Parminder's question (and at this point I am not sure any letter from IGC was sent), I am of course not against anyone writing letters. I do disagree with the argument that, at least in crucial cases like the PIR/ISOC transition, an arbitrary "rough consensus" is enough for sending a letter in representation of all of the IGC, particularly when there are manifest and strong disagreements on it already expressed in the list. I agree with Milton Mueller's points (msg of Dec.19) questioning the drafted letter.

Finally, I agree with the NCSG letter sent on Dec.9th to ICANN, in which NCSG essentially calls for adherence of the new .ORG TLD holders to the original RFP which reassigned .ORG from Verisign to PIR. NCSG is *not* calling for the suspension of the sale, provided that certain conditions are met, basically, inter alia (quoting from the letter):

- A revised notification procedure in which wholesale price increases of any amount give
ORG registrants 6 months to renew their domains for periods of up to 20 years at the
pre-existing annual rate. Implementation of this revised notification procedure must be
obligatory to both PIR as well as any registrar through which .org domain names are
registered and/or renewed.

- A strong commitment that the administration of the ORG domain will remain
content-neutral; that is, the registry will not suspend or take away domains based on
their publication of political, cultural, social, ethnic, religious, and personal content, even untrue, offensive, indecent, or unethical material, like that protected under the U.S. First Amendment.

- An elimination of the URS procedure within the ORG domain, as the rights protection
mechanisms specific to the URS were appropriate only for new domains.

PIR has already responded basically agreeing to these demands.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 20/12/2019 18:12, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
> Does rough consensus work if people who don't agree simply don't
> participate in the drafting of a letter with which they don't agree?
> 
> Or if people disagree, but aren't able to deal with the rough and tumble of
> the list and so don't post?
> What about those who aren't comfortable with writing about this in English,
> but are members of the IGC who disagree?
> 
> Maybe polling might be useful in certain cases when the "huge" amount of
> support doesn't come from a correspondingly "huge" proportion of the email
> addresses listed as members.
> 
> The poll sent out asking about sending a letter at all did not prevent
> people voting multiple times, BTW. Even so, the responses were a small
> number, I believe - about 40? Out of hundreds of members.
> 
> Regards
> Jacqueline
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm parminder, <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 20/12/19 6:55 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> Hmmm... the IGC has the right to sign anything as long as there is
>> *consensus* in the caucus.
>>
>> Actually as per the charter rough consensus is enough...
>>
>> I did not see any clear opposition other than Milton's perhaps, and a
>> huge amount of support for the letter, which clearly meets the standard
>> of rough consensus.
>>
>> BTW, at a personal level,  if you allow me to, may I ask, Carlos, are
>> you opposed to the IGC writing this letter and opposing the sale of .org?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>>
>>> []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>
>> ---
>> 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>
> 

-- 

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