[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[parminder]

Milton

taking from your comment

"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."

May I humbly ask, if indeed there is no difference between .org and any
other gtld, why do you and NCUC propose putting conditions on how any
owner of .org may run its business in future? why not just let market
logic determine such things - as you seem to normally believe?

I am of course talking about your and NCUC's position -- which you
rather un-humbly claim to be superior to the ill-informed position taken
by the IGC --  whereby it seeks to allow the sale if certain conditions
are met by the prospective buyer of .org.

It may also be asked, should there these conditions be put on all gtlds?

If not, then is your/NCUC's position only for the sake of taking a
position (given that almost everyone has taken a position on this issue)
-- as you have accused IGC and others of outrage for the sake of outrage!

BTW, just for clarification, a much less important question, are you
proposing these conditions be put on .org buyer by ICANN or these just
be a set of undertakings by the new buyer?

thanks and regards

parminder

 


On 20/12/19 12:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Sheetal:
>
> This is not a very well-informed letter, sorry to say. See comments in
> line below:
>
>  
>
> *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.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191223/480390d2/attachment.htm>