[governance] FW: [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table?

[Ayden Férdeline]

Stephanie, Milton-

That is a good point and I agree we do not need to refer to this piece in any of our contributions on this topic.

I shared it because it appears that ISOC was prepared to sell PIR for less than it was worth.

There may have been impact investors with a billion dollars - and a proven track record of doing good - that would have been willing to buy PIR and to let it continue to operate in the public interest, generating more modest returns, as they have other investments able to cover their needs/targets.

Instead, ISOC has proposed to sell PIR to a shell company with no track record of doing just that.

ISOC's CEO said last Friday, "This is a large amount of money that came to us unexpectedly. We were not looking for this. The buyer came to us and proposed a very large transaction. We concluded that that would provide us with a fund that we could then invest as an endowment."

That, to me, sounds like inadequate due diligence, particularly in the absence of additional information about what other bids were sought. If ISOC had received multiple bids, and sold PIR to an ethical investor for a reduced price, that would perhaps be justifiable. But given the facts we currently have available, we can only ponder what the pitch was that Ethos Capital had to attract its three Republican billionaire investors.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, 2 December 2019 22:37, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> All of the recent entrails examination is interesting, but I do agree with Milton here...we cannot complain about commercialization and then say by the way, that was not a high enough price.  So better not to refer to this analysis in anything we write.
>
> It is fair to question whether this was a good process, but the line is thin and we don't want to cross it.
>
> cheers
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2019-12-02 16:10, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think the analysis in this piece is rubbish.
>>
>> It assumes e.g. a leveraged buyout using borrowed money.
>>
>> But set that aside for the moment.
>>
>> It is inconsistent to jump up and down and scream that the sale of .org constitutes a horrible commercialization of the internet, and then turn around and complain that ISOC didn’t get enough capital for it.
>>
>> What exactly is our goal in raising a stink about this sale? Is just to make noise? Is it to get a higher price for ISOC? Or is it to get better protections for .ORG registrants? I hope it’s the latter.
>>
>> Dr. Milton L Mueller
>>
>> School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]
>>
>> From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
>> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:42 AM
>> To: governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
>> Subject: [governance] [article] Did ISOC leave $1 billion on the table?
>>
>> A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless:
>>
>> https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe:
>> [<mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>](mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net)
>> List help:
>> [<https://riseup.net/lists>](https://riseup.net/lists)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191202/645c2927/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2870 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191202/645c2927/attachment.jpg>