[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[parminder]

On 23/12/19 7:00 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Eheheh... Parminder never quits... :-)

Thanks Carlos, I take it as a complement :) .. Discursive democracy is
an important, perhaps even a central, value and practice for civil society.

Pl see some responses below.

>
> Have you noticed that ISOC is not a registry, that its mission is orthogonal to this activity, and that they created a registry to catch an opportunity for the purpose of generating income for the organization (and I am not against this)? Have you noticed that the main mission of CGI.br is to supervise the Brazilian registry, and this is the original reason for its creation?

ISOC runs or supervises a registry (matters little whether directly or
through a shell formation the PIR) and it does a lot of other work about
and around the Internet. So does CGI.Br all these things... No two
entities are exactly the same -- but the parallels here are strong and
clear. But if you insist then you can just compare PIR, a non-profit
that runs a registry, with CGI-Br, and my argument still stands...

I can change the argument to: Why is it ok to dissolve PIR, as an non
profit running a registry that many take to be a global commons because
of its name and the associations it carries (which is a real and
verifiable fact), and make it a for profit, when you dont agree the same
could or should be done for CGI.br running .br, a national commons, as
its principal mission?


>
> Have you noticed that the Brazilian registry is a not-for-profit operation in which the Brazilian .org is completely restricted, contrary to .ORG which since Verisign times was like any other gTLD, and continued to be so under ISOC?

.Br is only restricted to Brazilian, why cant a Brazilian corporation
run it maintaining the same conditions? Different commons have different
logics, associations and practices. You cant say your conceptions of
your commons are ok, but that of others are not.....  NGOs globally are
aghast, including entirely non-internet-y one's like Girls Scouts, and
UN Rapporteurs are calling .org to be special, how can you reject all
such global sentiment of global commons nature of .org, and still stick
to .br being strictly a national commons, and not even agree to a
Brazilian business to run it, with a contracted condition that only a
Brazilian entity can be allocated .br... I am sure Milton wiil be glad
for such an arrangement, and I bring it up becuase it was Milton's
position that you supported.

>
> If you are able to navigate through the several CGIbr-linked sites, have you noticed that the excess income of the registry operation is not to "sustain CGI.br", but to invest in the development of several services and projects crucial to the development of the Internet in Brazil as a whole?

Carlos, I do not have to navigate its website.. I know first hand about
CGI.br's diverse activities, I mention them in my email below, and have
held workshops with different branches of CGI doing work entirely
unrelated to .br management.

>
> And yes, CGI.br regards .br as the identity of Brazil on the Internet, and as a common good for Brazilians, 

would love to hear what Milton thinks of this formulation :)  (I dont
see how allocation of .br is non-excludable)


> and acts likewise. Completely different of .ORG, which is looked at by different organizations as a common good but objectively does not operate as such, I repeat, since the beginning of its commercial operation.

You yourselves agree that many organisations see .org as a common good,
and the current very widespread outrage proves it even more -- This fact
had a strong role in allocation of .org to ISOC, and till just a few
months back PIR has being carrying its special commons/ non profit
status on its sleeves (i can share quotes if you want).... Your
conclusion that 'but objectively (.org) does not operate as such' is
both a little stretched, and in any case no reason why we make 'org
operate even less as a global commons than it already does, by its
outright sale to a (fishy smelling) business.... My apologies, but that
appears to be a strange logic...

best regards, and happy Christmas celebrations!

parminder

>
> You are shooting the completely wrong target, my friend...
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 23/12/2019 01:32, parminder wrote:
>> Dear Carlos
>>
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> Not trying to corner you or anyone but still trying to understand your
>> position (and its basis), and also further arguing my point through
>> ananalogy:
>>
>> If you think .org can be disposed off to be run by an ordinary business,
>> after just putting some conditions, does that mean that CGI.br -- the
>> Brazilian non-profit custodian of .br -- could as well also do the same
>> with .br -- sell it off to an ordinary business, perhaps with some
>> conditions, making a huge profit that can be used to forever sustain
>> CGI.br and also undertake much more resourcefully many other Internet
>> spread related functions that CGI.br does?
>>
>> I may not be so sure of CGI.br itself or ISOC-Brazil, but do you not
>> think there will be widespread popular opposition in Brazil if this is done?
>>
>> This analogy IMHO holds because if .br is a Brazilian common good (or
>> commons), many people consider .org to similarly be a global common good.
>>
>> thanks and best regards
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On 23/12/19 1:23 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> 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>
>>>>