[governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell
Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)
governance at lists.riseup.net
Sun Dec 1 13:58:18 EST 2019
Dear(s) Sheetal and All
Thanks for summarizing the question to be submitted, I would like to add few comments:
1. Although transparency has been a basic requirement for non-commercial organizations in public interest, however, only questioning about transparency could help in solving the puzzle (what, why, how) but does not solve the matter of selling non-commercial entity to the commercial one. If the ISoc BoT takes a decision on transparency by opening the deal of selling it, how it will solve the issue. Actually, ISOC sold PIR, while every one is discussing the registry .Org managed by PIR. dot ORG Registry encapsulated with in this sale of PIR. I suggest we have to address the matter differently.
2. There had been suggestions from few of the friends for ensuring the Price-cap regulation, how a commercial entity will accept it, or how long non-commercial entity will remain under bindings? How they can leave the competitive market and open competition aside?
3. By the way, current market price of .org domain name is already double of the price of .com, why? has CS taken any action? and why not half instead of double?
4. Price Increase will eliminate many of the public interest activities, "not for profit organizations", "non-commercial entities", "digital presence of work for good reasons".
Here, I would like to quote a practical example of the ISOC Pakistan chapter.
"ISOC Pakistan chapter blog (its digital presence) was established on Ning (initially free platform), it has been active for years and community members were engaged for IG related discussion (taking advantage of blog). At a stage, Ning suddenly applied few $ fee, in a result the blog was disabled and chapter has no membership records, ISoc removed chapter's membership and finally it is disappeared.
5. ISOC was getting millions from PIR, why it is being sold?
6. In my point of view, .org should remain under the stewardship, control/, administered by non-commercial entities and should have to be operated by not for profit entities.
7. I am afraid of this kind of practice, "the encapsulated sale of TLD's Registry". Think.... if the same practice is exercised by the other "Public Interest and community related" s/g/TLD's Registry Owners.... In 2009, I have said in ICANN;s Public Forum (Seoul Meeting) that their action will be starting a big Gambling Game.
Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
Consultant/ Advisor
TLDians.OrgUrdu Internet Council
On Sunday, 1 December 2019, 21:44:39 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
Dear Ayden, all,
Thanks for your responses! It seems to me that if we're going to agree on anything, it's the lack of transparency that we can agree needs to be rectified. I've slightly reworded the below in light of the recent suggestions and remarks.
What do others think about Sylvain's suggestions of asking about setting up a commons PIR (is this possible/feasible?) and of sending this also to ISOC's BoT and CEO? Do you have any others?
As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial organisations, we are concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the sale of .ORG. When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:
- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?
- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?
- What are ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?"
- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital?
We request answers to these questions in the spirit of building trust among NGOs and the non-commercial constituency more generally and those who play a key role in stewarding the Internet.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:58, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously.
ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks.
Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board.
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote:
Dear all,
What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions.
It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below:
When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process:
- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?
- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?
- What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?"
- How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital
Best
Sheetal
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> a écrit :
> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the
> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their
> 'well intended' *big deal*.
>
> Why ?
> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under
> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are
> still oppressed by 99% of 10M
None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you.
...what's the point please, dear Bill ?
Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ?
Shalom,
--sb.
-Bill
--
--
Best Regards !
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> | <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2)
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
--
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: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
--
Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +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: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191201/14e72ac4/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list