[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[Niels ten Oever]

There are many ways this could be addressed if people think this is important, but polling/voting is currently not described in the charter whereas (rough) consensus is.

Best,

Niels

On 12/23/19 12:14 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Rough consensus favours the most vocal majority out of the individuals that speak up, all of whom constitute a small fraction of the caucus membership
> 
> For normal decisions this is fine. For anything as significant as this, there must be a poll and a provision to allow individuals to opt out.  Or a signature of the letter by specifically named individuals in their individual capacities as members of the igcaucus
> 
> --srs
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 3:44 AM +0530, "Niels ten Oever" <lists at digitaldissidents.org <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     I just want to say that I think the coordinators have exactly done what is their task according to the IGC charter:
> 
>     [quote]
>     The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to reach consensus whenever possible.
> 
>     In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject to an appeal as described below.
>     [/quote]
> 
>     Am not sure why people are now adamant to have their names listed as objectors, which seems to go against the (rough) consensus model and rather mimics voting processes.
> 
>     Best,
> 
>     Niels
> 
> 
>     On 12/20/19 3:01 PM, Sheetal Kumar 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 > 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 > 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 /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: > > >> List help: > > -- > > 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: > List help: > -- 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
> 

-- 
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