[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