[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Sat Dec 7 15:46:50 EST 2019


I think a statement that concentrates on stop the sale is the best way 
to go.

And I agree the governance/ISOC reform issue has to be addressed - but 
not in this statement

------ Original Message ------
From: "Ayden Férdeline" <ayden at ferdeline.com>
To: "Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ" <udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng>
Cc: "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net>; "Sheetal Kumar" 
<sheetal at gp-digital.org>; "ias_pk at yahoo.com" <ias_pk at yahoo.com>; "Ian 
Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; "governance" 
<governance at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: 8/12/2019 2:52:14 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

>Hi,
>
>>Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be 
>>answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to 
>>either continue or denounce membership.
>
>No, I think there is a widespread misunderstanding here.
>
>I thought ISOC was a membership-based organization too when I became an 
>ISOC member.
>
>I think that ISOC's messaging is not clear. They say the Internet is 
>for everyone, and decisions must be made in a bottom-up 
>multistakeholder manner, but ISOC itself is not a multistakeholder 
>organization.
>
>ISOC is an independent trust governed by a Board of Trustees.
>
>Individual members have an indirect say in appointing *some* of the 
>Trustees. 4 of the 13 Trustees are appointed by Chapters.
>
>However, ISOC is not a democratically-run membership organization that 
>exists to represent the views or interests of its members. No decision 
>requires ratification by membership, for example.
>
>I think we should keep discussions about ISOC's governance structure 
>separate from those of the proposed sale of PIR, but this is an 
>extremely important issue that I hope we do not lose sight of.
>
>As an individual ISOC member I do not think ISOC considers me a 
>stakeholder with whom it owes any responsibilities, obligations, or 
>duties. I think that is extremely problematic. ISOC is the best-funded 
>organization in the Internet freedom movement, but not as effective as 
>it could be were we to better hold them to account for how they spend 
>their public interest money.
>
>Ayden Férdeline
>
>
>
>
>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>On Saturday, 7 December 2019 16:28, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ 
><udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng> wrote:
>
>>Good steps. Great views.
>>
>>The draft statement is super if we address one issue I observe (unless 
>>my understanding of it isn't good enough). I think calling for a halt 
>>and at the same time seeking greater transparency and appropriate 
>>safeguards...to protect the interests of .ORG and so on are not in 
>>harmony.
>>
>>We either call for a halt outlining the strong reasons for the call 
>>(stopping at that for now, as Brett posited) or we ask the board to 
>>assure us of the appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the 
>>interests and rights of registrants and their sites users, for the 
>>sale to remain. I think this option is makes much sense if, as Ayden 
>>observed, the board is unbendable in its wrong action. This stance of 
>>the board (confirmed by Sullivan's statements and those of other board 
>>members in some press articles) outrightly questions what my (and 
>>anyone else's) membership of ISOC means.
>>
>>Is iSOC truly a membership organisation? This question needs to be 
>>answered convincingly, maybe after this clash, for one to choose to 
>>either continue or denounce membership.
>>>
>>>>On Dec 7, 2019, at 08:13, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for weighing in. Everyone agrees that transparency is what we 
>>>>must ask for, at a minimum but there seems to be general agreement 
>>>>that this isn't enough to ask for. I get the impression that there 
>>>>are two approaches suggested here: 1) an approach that accepts the 
>>>>deal is going ahead and asking for PIR to be incorporated as a 
>>>>benefit corporation 2) asking for a halt/suspension to the sale 
>>>>unless certain conditions are met.
>>>>
>>>>Opinions seem to weigh in more on the second approach but I suggest 
>>>>we hold a poll to ascertain which path to go down and then go with 
>>>>that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Best
>>>>Sheetal
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 20:47, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Thank you Imran, I do appreciate your edits, comments, and 
>>>>>questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not that I am comfortable with this deal. I suspect it will be 
>>>>>a disaster.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just do not believe we will be able to persuade ISOC to change 
>>>>>its decision here.
>>>>>
>>>>>All of the comments that I have seen individual ISOC Trustees make 
>>>>>indicate a low level of understanding of the difference between a 
>>>>>non-profit entity and a for-profit entity.
>>>>>
>>>>>They see PIR as an asset to be sold, like an office building, and 
>>>>>believe the financial sustainability of ISOC is more important than 
>>>>>meeting the public interest elements of their charter.
>>>>>
>>>>>I also see a deep belief in technological determinism in many of 
>>>>>their comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I was trying to be as pragmatic as possible in what I was 
>>>>>proposing.
>>>>>
>>>>>If this deal is happening, and ISOC doesn't seem to be backing down 
>>>>>(nor in their evaluation do they believe criticism is sincerely 
>>>>>held by anyone but a small number of individuals), then I think we 
>>>>>need to put pressure on the Board to condition the sale on there 
>>>>>being certain protections in place for registrants.
>>>>>
>>>>>PIR is transitioning into a for-profit company. I think that ISOC 
>>>>>may have already petitioned the Orphans Court in Pennsylvania for 
>>>>>this to happen. Ethos Capital will have a fiduciary duty to its 
>>>>>shareholders, and it will be required to increase wholesale costs 
>>>>>on .ORG domain names to fulfil that obligation. While their CEO has 
>>>>>said they have no intention of operating PIR differently going 
>>>>>forward, this is not consistent with his fiduciary duty. His role 
>>>>>is to maximize shareholder value for Ethos Capital and act in the 
>>>>>best interest of the corporation – not .ORG registrants.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only way we can be assured that they consider more than just 
>>>>>the fiduciary interests of the corporation is to have PIR 
>>>>>incorporated as a real benefit corporation (NOT a B Lab B 
>>>>>Certification, which is what we are being offered at the moment). I 
>>>>>think that is the best thing we can ask for at present.
>>>>>
>>>>>If PIR is a benefit corporation, this cannot be reversed, even if 
>>>>>PIR is subsequently sold by Ethos Capital, and so we have long-term 
>>>>>assurances that PIR will be legally obliged to consider societal 
>>>>>impacts as well as fiduciary ones. But a B Lab B Certification can 
>>>>>be dropped at any time if Ethos Capital so desires.
>>>>>
>>>>>ISOC's Board does not seem willing to rise to the occasion and to 
>>>>>consider what is in the interests of the broader non-profit, 
>>>>>non-governmental organization, and non-commercial communities. The 
>>>>>Board is not in listening mode, they are just being defensive. I 
>>>>>don't see that changing unfortunately, and I see no way to compel 
>>>>>ISOC to listen to us. It is not a membership-based organization, it 
>>>>>is essentially an independent trust. There are serious governance 
>>>>>deficiencies that we need to attempt to address there in the 
>>>>>future, particularly as the organization absorbs $1.135 billion. 
>>>>>But the Board wants the money, and unless someone else steps 
>>>>>forward offering more, they seem unwilling to change their mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>If that's the case, I regretfully feel like we have to ask for what 
>>>>>little we can get in order to try to minimize the harm that is 
>>>>>likely to accrue to .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>On Friday, 6 December 2019 13:17, Imran Ahmed Shah 
>>>>><governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Sheetal,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with the Ian Peter. We needs the point to weigh-in our 
>>>>>>statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have some queries, suggestions and recommendations on the 
>>>>>>initial draft of Ayden and copying hereunder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Few comments:
>>>>>>I think we should not evaluate Public Interest in terms of 
>>>>>>Money.... in any case...
>>>>>>We should not to be more concerned with the financial figures.
>>>>>>Perhaps, we may be concerned if it is being discussed in reference 
>>>>>>of the ICANN's decision and reasoning behind handing over the 
>>>>>>dotOrg to ISOC 'to support recurring expenses etc.'.. and now, if 
>>>>>>the ISOC has gotten enough benefits out of it,......dotORG should 
>>>>>>have to be returned to ICANN, so that ICANN can handover to some 
>>>>>>other similar not-for-profit trustworthy, credible organizations 
>>>>>>working for Public Interests, having the capacity to over see the 
>>>>>>Internet in Public domain and public interest.... to benefit next 
>>>>>>one after ISOC....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Secondly, our goal is the protection of dotOrg from going it into 
>>>>>>the hand of commercial and nonpublic interest companies even if 
>>>>>>they could be able to recruiting, the hundreds of the CS members 
>>>>>>or can employee (or buy in some in-kind trade) ..to address public 
>>>>>>interests to claim.some kind of notional support board...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also suggest to create etherpad document... just created with 
>>>>>>the points shared by you... 
>>>>>>https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep 
>>>>>><https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGConPIRv0NiRaxk3qi-keep>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>= = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  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 [IAS: suggest to add here… “keeping the Public 
>>>>>>Interest Intact”]. 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.[IAS: it very polite, humble request or perhaps 
>>>>>>diplomatic sentence/phrase. Which will result a simple answer 
>>>>>>“thanks for your deep concerns but we do not feel it appropriate 
>>>>>>at this stage the take the deal off”, the same I have listen from 
>>>>>>ICANN Chair in 2009] We encourage you to do just that. [IAS: What 
>>>>>>to do, to stop the deal or what is appropriate? Need to change 
>>>>>>this sentence and to be specific result that we are recommending 
>>>>>>or demanding] As a sign of good faith, we ask that ISOC have Ethos 
>>>>>>Capital commit to incorporating PIR as a benefit corporation. 
>>>>>>[IAS: again we are allowing them to proceed with the deal and 
>>>>>>seeking the alteration of the terms, rules/bylaws and commitment 
>>>>>>of a commercial entity to keep this public interest entity 
>>>>>>protected as a benefit organization…? Secondly, believing and 
>>>>>>understanding that the Investor “Ethos Capital” has invested the 
>>>>>>PIR to convert in B-Corp/ commercial entity how we assume that he 
>>>>>>will be accepting when he has investing billions..] 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. [IAS: I suggest that we 
>>>>>>should use it as a proof that Ethos Capital has intention to 
>>>>>>transform the public interest entity into a B-Corp/ commercial 
>>>>>>entity. In the same context, we should ask ‘the Board’ that is 
>>>>>>this ‘intention’ was in their knowledge or in the knowledge of 
>>>>>>decision maker bodies that this faith base public interest entity 
>>>>>>will be commercialized by the new investor? If, yes, how they 
>>>>>>accepted it?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Large parts of the world[IAS: I suggest that here we have to use 
>>>>>>other terms which has higher weightage (weigh-in); e.g. one of the 
>>>>>>ISOC/PIR representative has responded like this “the objections 
>>>>>>are not reported from the majority of users, which means the 
>>>>>>majority of the users has no concern who is running the registry”] 
>>>>>>are uncomfortable with the Internet being governed entirely by 
>>>>>>commercial interests, and many of our members[IAS: I suggest that 
>>>>>>we have to elaborate “the members”, e.g IGC Members, IGC coalition 
>>>>>>Partners or perhaps including CSCG] 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 [IAS: I suggest 
>>>>>>rephrase “Could have been assured”] 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. [IAS: I 
>>>>>>suggest add these lines here “Our Data & Privacy is not being 
>>>>>>compromised, shared, observed, monitored are not shared or sold to 
>>>>>>the competitors (right now during transition or) in future by the 
>>>>>>Registry, or partner commercial/ noncommercial entities”] These 
>>>>>>are more than just domains, they are symbols of our desire to do 
>>>>>>good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>= = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
>>>>>>= =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = = = = =
>>>>>>[IAS: I also have few more concerns:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1.       Needs transparency and disclosure of the followings (to 
>>>>>>re-establish of the trust being shacked):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i.                     the reasoning behind the selling PIR ‘out 
>>>>>>of the way’ (as apparently seems to me)?,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ii.                   the reasoning behind the avoidance of 
>>>>>>engaging a proper bidding?,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>iii.                  the reasoning to giving sole power of 
>>>>>>decision of sales without the evaluation through open competition 
>>>>>>and opening comments to sell or not?,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>iv.                 the information of intention disclosure 
>>>>>>regarding the commercialization aspect or transformation of PIR to 
>>>>>>B-Corp, when it came in to the knowledge of the selling bodies 
>>>>>>(prior/during/post sales agreement).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>v.                   Technical Terms and basis of the Technical 
>>>>>>Evaluations of the Investor Ability, Capability, Credibility, 
>>>>>>Dependability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>vi.                 Safeguards evaluated in terms of Public 
>>>>>>Interest, Faith, Data Protection, Privacy, Security evaluated 
>>>>>>before making the decision of sales of PIR (.ORG/.NGO/.ONG)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2.       I would suggest that the statement should be in the 
>>>>>>following format:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Preamble/Preface paragraph:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Objection/Obligation/Concerns
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What we demand:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Our First Requirement is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Requirement of Information (e.g Transparency, Disclosure of deal/ 
>>>>>>agreement/ technical/ functional/ organizational structural 
>>>>>>design/basis/planning)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Our Second Requirement is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A.      The above facts and figures demand you to stop/end-up the 
>>>>>>due diligence process and stop the deal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the efforts for A are convincingly & persuasively exercised and 
>>>>>>but could not achieving required goal-A, we recommends to achieve 
>>>>>>minimal goal-B after the adoption of above….
>>>>>>
>>>>>>B.      What we need if the Sales Deal is accomplished, i.e. 
>>>>>>ensure the commitment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>a.       Immediate commitment (prior to sale),
>>>>>>
>>>>>>b.      long term commitment (after sales),
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(by the way I am not convinced that a commercial organization 
>>>>>>remains commitment for public interest for long term benefits. 
>>>>>>Maximum commitments one can expect is just for 2-3 years not 
>>>>>>beyond. Secondly, if the Ethos Capital sales this entity to any 
>>>>>>other commercial entity after changing its status to B-Corp, where 
>>>>>>the agreements with ISOC stands?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  = = = = = = == = = =  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = 
>>>>>>= = = = =
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[TLDians/UISoc/UiCouncil]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Friday, 6 December 2019, 01:13:59 GMT+5, Ian Peter 
>>>>>><ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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 
>>>>>>>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> <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/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><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 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><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>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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 
>>>>>>>><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 
>>>>>>><https://www.google.com/maps/search/68-80+Hanbury+Street,+London,+E1+5JL?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>>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>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sheetal Kumar
>>>>Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>>Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL 
>>>><https://www.google.com/maps/search/68-80+Hanbury+Street,+London,+E1+5JL?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>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>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ, Ph.D.
>>Computer Communications Centre
>>University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001
>>@DrCPUNjoku
>>  We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things,
>>
>>especially if they're not yielding optimum results.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191207/a34eb9c5/attachment.htm>


More information about the Governance mailing list