[governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty'
George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)
governance at lists.riseup.net
Wed Feb 19 18:52:20 EST 2020
> On Feb 19, 2020, at 6:34 PM, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Dear George,
>
> Thank you for sharing this information.
>
> I did not feel it appropriate for me to forward your messages to this list, as only the document I shared had been made clear was public. But I appreciate you sharing the fuller exchange here for those who are interested in reviewing it.
>
> I understand that you instigated the proposed meeting. I also understand you are a current candidate for the ISOC Board of Trustees, and I believe you have previously served on the Board. And given funding was initially offered for this meeting by either Ethos or ISOC (I am not sure which), you clearly had some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiations with them in order to arrange this. So I think it is fair to say that ISOC was a party to this meeting - they agreed to send representatives, after all - and I have seen no evidence that they objected to the meeting being a closed one. Am I mistaken? Did ISOC want it to be open?
I am a current candidate for the ISOC Board, and I have previously served on the Board. We had an initial understanding that the funds might be available and that they might participate. On that basis I continued to plan for the workshop.
You are mistaken in saying that ISOC was 'a party to this meeting.' ISOC was an invitee, not a party to the planning of the meeting. I was the planner. I did not ask them how they felt about the meeting being an informal one and not 'open' in the sense that it was visible or audible in real time. ISOC expressed no preference and I did not ask them for one.
>
> It is still not clear to me how you (or who) chose people to invite to participate in this meeting.
I thought I answered that earlier. Here is my reply:
> Can this list be made public? How were the attendees selected?
No, the list will not be made public. The meeting is obviously not happening and I don't see value in it. If I organize a group of my colleagues for informal brainstorming, we would announce it if we report results out to a larger community, and we had actually planned to do that in this case.
The invitee group would have included people from the institutions involved in the sale, plus a group of 4-7 people who had indicated serious concern and opposition to the sale as evidenced in conversations on lists and in person in multiple locations. The selection was based upon my judgment and the judgment of the people I asked for advice and recommendations. We explicitly did not invite people who expressed themselves in rigid and dogmatic terms, indicating that they would move toward a polemic rather than a reasoned discussion.
````````````````
Ask yourself how you choose people with who you want to brainstorm an idea. They have to be intelligent, thoughtful, not wedded to a fixed set of ideas, creative, have knowledge about the issue and be involved in it, and not be jerks. Those seem like workable criteria, don't they?
Regards,
George
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, 20 February 2020 00:26, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <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 <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com> http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ <http://www.georgesadowsky.org/>
>>
>
> <Meeting plan for .org.pdf>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/e55cc019/attachment.htm>
More information about the Governance
mailing list