[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Thu Dec 5 15:13:06 EST 2019
I agree approach and basic points Sheetal - but I would drop the human
rights clause because it is contentious and does not add great value to
the strong basic argument.
Ian
------ Original Message ------
From: "Sheetal Kumar" <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
To: "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "governance" <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: 6/12/2019 6:48:38 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale
>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
>saleThere 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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/20191205/916e1383/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list