[governance] Issues about ISOC and the public interest registries.

[Dave Burstein]

Joly is right about the financial issues here - which are not the only
consideration - but

Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational
members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor.


Does not correspond to any definition I know of multistakeholder, all of
which, including ISOC's include that the membership/stakeholders play a
direct role in making major decisions. A definition like that destroys the
meaning of multistakeholder. After all, the US Senate and President is
elected and nominally represents "the people." Does that mean every
decision by the US gov is "multistakeholder." Especially given we have "the
finest Congress money can buy."

*In addition, Chairman Camarillo has said the exact opposite, *specifically
that board members may be chosen but are *not* representatives. Rather the
board members make decisions independently in the overall interests of
ISOC. Which is how they have always behaved. I don't remember *any* board
member consulting widely on *any* major decision.

It is a convenient fantasy for people who want to keep top management in
charge at ISOC. We all lie to ourselves to justify our beliefs.

It reminds me of the claims from Saudi Arabia and Russia they made Internet
decisions in a multistakeholder way. The Saudis pointed to the
consultations they had. After all, most Chinese actually believe no one has
ever represented the people more effectively than the Chinese Communist
Party.  (Per the closest thing we have to accurate polls in China. Outside
of Hong Kong, it probably is true that "democracy" does not appeal to most
Chinese, right or wrong.



On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:31 PM Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> Hi Deirdre
>
> >  1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish.
>
> My understanding is that the principal will be invested, only (some of)
> the income will be spent.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment
>
> According to the Q&A sessions, some factors in the Trustees thinking (in
> my interpretation)
>
> 1) They had long been concerned that nearly all of ISOC's financial eggs
> were in one basket. In fact it was one big egg.
> 2)  There had also been discussion of the need to invest in PIR, and how
> that might affect ISOC's immediate income.
> 3)  There had been offers, but such that they were summarily dismissed as
> unrealistic.
> 4) The Ethos offer was significantly more and would guarantee ISOC's
> income over a diverse set of investments.
> 5) Expert advice informed them they were unlikely to get a better offer,
> and an auction could lose them the offer/ mess with PIR.
> 6) The same advice told them that the likelihood that Ethos would flip PIR
> was next to zero.
> 7) Ethos made undertakings to continue  run PIR in the public interest,
> and hired people familiar with community concerns.
> 8) In any auction it would be pretty much impossible to evaluate such
> commitments.
> 8) The investors in Ethos had eggs in other baskets, and more money, thus
> would be freer of financial pressure.
> 9) The trustees had a fiduciary duty to ISOC and to sustain its mission.
> 10) In their understanding of the domain name market, major price rises
> were proven losers.
> 11) No one can say that  the DNS will rule forever.
> 12) The endowment would allow long term planning.
> 13) PIR is constrained by its contracts with ICANN.
>
> Thus the BoT, itself a multistakeholder body representing Organizational
> members, Chapters, and the Technical Community, unanimously voted in favor.
>
> I am sure there was plenty back and forth before that happened.
>
> joly
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Deirdre Williams <
> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> An issue that I haven't seen addressed is the issue of history and the
>> reason why. Forgive me if it has been said already.
>> In the beginning ISOC was endowed with the public interest registries
>> a) to provide a steady income for ISOC to enable its work
>> And b) to ensure access for the public interest.
>> 1.3 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money now, but 5 years from now?
>> And 1.3 billion is a finite amount - it will finish.
>> In a way ISOC is a trustee holding an income producing asset. A trustee
>> MIGHT consider selling such an asset to meet a very serious and urgent need
>> on the part of its ward, or to invest in an alternative project better
>> suited for revenue creation.
>> My questions for ISOC would be:
>> a) what is the urgent and serious need which forces the sale of this
>> asset?
>> b) absent that, what is the alternative project which will guarantee the
>> continuance of ISOC's income?
>> Best wishes
>> Deirdre
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 
Editor, https://Fastnet.news <http://Fastnet.news> https://wirelessone.news
<http://wirelessone.news>
Reply "sub" for a free subscription to Fast Net News and Wireless One
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191202/11595f33/attachment.htm>