[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[Sheetal Kumar]

Dear Ayden, Parminder, all,

First, thank you very much Ayden for putting this together! I appreciate
the attempt to reconcile opposing views, which are clearly present in the
IGC.

I would just say that we have heard from very few others on this list. This
may be for any number of reasons, and we could do a poll if its helpful to
gather views, including whether people feel they need more information to
be able to weigh in.

To move forward, if we can agree on the following key points that we need
to get across, we can work together on editing/finalising text.

Short of a poll, if everyone could weigh-in on whether they agree on these
points that would be helpful.


   - There is a need for greater transparency about the terms of the sale
   - There are potential implications for human rights if the sale goes
   through (need to list/clearly enumerate these)
   - As a result, many members of IGC align themselves with the statements
   from EFF and Access Now and the call for an outright halt to the sale.
   - At a minimum, all IGC members agree there is a need for greater
   transparency regarding the terms and potential implications of this sale,
   and that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the interests
   of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people who visit their websites
   every day


It's difficult to get consensus at best of times, but this is a tricky
issue and if we want to put forward something together we might need to go
with what we can all agree on at a top-level.

I look forward to hearing from a wide-range of people, and if anyone has
alternative ideas please let us know.

Best
Sheetal

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 08:12, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> thanks for this effort Ayden
>
> But when there is such a strong 'stop the sale' movement out there, it
> will be embarrassing for the IG related civil society groups to say, well,
> at least let Ethos now behave when ISOC did not .... Why ask Ethos to set
> PIR as a benefit corporation (which they will certainly not) when the
> existing arrangement (since the sale is not through) is itself more
> satisfactory? Why not ask for status quo and stopping the sale?
>
> parminder
> On 04/12/19 6:01 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a new proposed statement that I hope we may consider issuing.
> Please see below. I have used Sheetal's language as a starting point (thank
> you!) but I am afraid I did change the messaging quite a bit. This is just
> a suggestion and please do feel free to edit it to pieces.
>
> Like Brett, I too would prefer we advocate for stopping the sale
> altogether, but in the spirit of compromise and given a number of posts on
> this list that seem supportive of the sale, I've tried a different approach
> here.
>
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> *To:*    *Gonzalo Camarillo, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Internet
> Society*
>
> *As members of a network which encompasses many non-commercial
> organizations and public interest technologists, we are concerned by the
> announcement that Ethos Capital is acquiring the assets of the Public
> Interest Registry (PIR) from the Internet Society (ISOC), including the
> .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements.  *
>
> *Principally, we are concerned that the sale of PIR to a private entity
> will significantly alter the Domain Name System and weaken ISOC. PIR played
> an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain
> registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial
> exploitation. 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. While the interests of companies and users do at
> times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are
> significant human rights implications. 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. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy
> and influence. It allowed ISOC to take an active role in shaping Internet
> infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, ISOC loses 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.*
>
> *This is a significant change, for ISOC and for the Internet community,
> and we are not yet satisfied that there are appropriate safeguards in place
> to protect the interests of .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants and the people
> who visit their websites every day. You have the ability to put requests to
> Ethos Capital and to call this deal off if appropriate and binding
> safeguards cannot be put in place. We encourage you to do just that. As a
> sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos Capital commit to
> incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. We understand that Ethos
> Capital has said they are evaluating becoming a B Lab B Corp, but this is
> not the same thing as a benefit corporation and is instead a non-binding
> certification. *
>
> *Large parts of the world are uncomfortable with the Internet being
> governed entirely by commercial interests, and many of our members are
> deeply uncomfortable with PIR being sold at all. However, incorporation as
> a benefit corporation could provide a sturdier path forward if ISOC does
> proceed to sell the assets of PIR, and could be an effective means of
> mitigating against some of the risks that we can foresee emerging from this
> sale. A benefit corporation in the right jurisdiction would require the
> publication of comprehensive, credible, independent, and transparent annual
> reports on social impact and, most importantly, require the organization to
> consider benefits to the public in addition to profit when decisions are
> being made. And, it would oblige Ethos Capital to honor the promises and
> commitments it is making today.*
>
>
>
> *We trust that you understand why this is important to us. Ethos Capital
> is an unknown entity, and in the absence of clear information about their
> motives behind acquiring PIR and their sales pitch to investors, the
> non-profit and non-governmental communities require assurances that the
> future of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG domain names that we use for our email,
> websites, campaigns, and fundraising efforts are in safe hands. These are
> more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do good.*
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Sunday, 1 December 2019 17:44, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
> <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 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> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
> ---
> 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|
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191205/72c1f5d5/attachment.htm>