[governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty'

Wed Feb 19 18:26:50 EST 2020

Ayden,

I think that it was is clearly unfair of you to post this document, of which I am the principal author,  without also posting the context in which I presented it on the ISOC Policy list.  I am posting that context here below, as well as the original copy of the document.  You asked me a number of followup questions, and I responded to those,  I am also posting that interchange below.

In particular, you could have already read the first message below, and if you believed that I was reporting truthfully, you knew that I was the instigator of the proposed meeting, not anyone else.  Yet you post below:

    "It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics."

There is no truth to the implications in this statement and I believe that you know it.

George Sadowsky

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 19/02/2020 15:22, George Sadowsky via InternetPolicy wrote:
> All,
> 
> I am intervening to provide the facts about the so-called "secret peace treaty" as Kieren so ineptly and inaccurately appeared to characterize it.
> 
> I am the principal author of the attached document that describes what my colleague Kathy Kleiman and I were trying to accomplish in working toward the so-called "secret meeting."  It wasn't secret and it wasn't a negotiation.  It was an attempt to understand the best ways of salvaging what we could that was valuable from the damage being done during the current uproar about the proposed .org sale.  The document speaks for itself.  It's attached at the bottom of this message.  Read it.
> 
> We wanted to provide an opportunity to explore possible paths that would minimize damage to the ISOC/.org/NGO/NFP community when this issue was finally resolved, whether it was resolved one way or the other.  We believe that there is an enormous amount of value of value in what ISOC and PIR have accomplished, both jointly and separately, and we want to preserve it and build upon it for a better Internet not only for this community but also for all Internet beneficiaries, current and future.. These are institutions that have contributed substantially to a better and more accessible Internet and to the well-being of our community.   If that is a crime, I proudly plead guilty.
> 
> We offered the meeting as a mechanism that might lead to a better choice of solutions for all of is, i.e. a win-win-win scenario.  We hoped that we could find or craft out-of-the-box ways in which all of us could benefit more than what appears to be happening now.  We thought that this community might actually appreciate attempts to improve what is now approaching a very polarized state of affairs.
> 
> We approached participants involved in the sale for funding because we felt that it would be an opportunity for them to learn and discuss objections to the sale in a rational and non-accusatory environment.  We believe that the current state of polarization discourages if not prevents rational discussion in a fully open meeting, and we hoped for new ideas from the meeting that could then be floated openly among a much sider group.  Based upon their plans and their constraints, the sale participants felt that the proposed meeting did not fit into their idea  how to proceed, and after considerable discussion including a lot of listening on their part, they declined.  I think that they made a mistake, but they in turn believe that they are acting in their best interests.  That is their right.
> 
> If you think that the approach of having such a meeting is wrong, attack me, not them.  I am the principal person responsible. If in the future you are interested in the truth, I suggest that you should find a more reliable source from which to get your information.
> 
> George Sadowsky

> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline <ferdeline at protonmail.com <mailto:ferdeline at protonmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for sharing this document, George.
> 
> Can you please expand upon why there was a desire for this meeting to happen in a closed environment? I thought one concern about the sale - expressed over and over again since November - was the whole lack of transparency and open consultation. 

Yes.

Open meetings discourage frank and open discussion when the situation is polarized, and therefore discussants generally play to their constituencies who are watching.  That results in arguments, not discussions.  You can consider the posts on this subjects on this list to have been an open meeting of sorts, and the tendency for posters has been to posts strengthening their side of the argument rather than trying to work with the other side. 

There is a good case to be made for open meetings and for transparency much of the time, but not always.  I judge mechanisms like that on the basis of the outcome of the process involved rather than on the tools used to get there.

The proposed meeting was to be a group of colleagues, admittedly with dirreent and conflicting goals, to explore whether there were solutions that hadn't been considered that could make everyone better off.

Closed meetings allow discussants to take chances with ideas, to know that their explorations into areas that are perhaps dogmatically held by their group won't be used to discredit them later. There are opposite sides represented, and the temptation in an open meeting to remember what the opposite side said and to use it in a negative way against them later often seems too good to resist.  
>  
> 
> You say that this meeting "wasn't secret", but when the first time that many of us are hearing about this proposal was in the media, it certainly seems like it was some sort of secret.

Let's differentiate between 'secret,' locally informed and globally uninformed' and 'broadcast to a larger community .'  There are gradations here in the extent to which information gets distributed.  If I get a group of colleagues together to brainstorm informally, I see no need to tell a large number of people that I am doing it.  That was the sense in which we proceeded..  Most of us do this informally much of the time, including our side conversations at larger meetings which are open, such as ICANN meetings.  There's nothing wrong with it since we're not making decisions that affect people or institutions who are not there.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden Férdeline 
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Regarding the sale of .ORG, in The Register today it was reported:
> 
> "... word has reached us that Ethos Capital attempted to broker a secret peace treaty this coming weekend in Washington DC by inviting key individuals to a closed-door meeting with the goal of thrashing out an agreement all sides would be happy with. After Ethos insisted the meeting be kept brief, and a number of those opposed to the sale declined to attend, Ethos's funding for attendees' flights and accommodation was suddenly withdrawn, and the plan to hold a confab fell apart, we understand."
> 
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/ <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/>
> 
> I asked on an internal ISOC mailing list if any additional information was available on this "secret peace treaty." For information purposes and because it is not otherwise accessible to those not unsubscribed to one particular ISOC list, I am attaching the document that was shared with me and which can be made public. 
> 
> It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ayden Férdeline 
> 
> <Meeting plan for .org.pdf>---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                                    Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325
8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472                          Mobile: +1.202.415.1933
Bethesda MD  20817-2831  USA                                    Skype: sadowsky      
george.sadowsky at gmail.com                http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200219/563d3928/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Meeting plan for .org.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 71861 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200219/563d3928/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200219/563d3928/attachment-0001.htm>