[Chapter-delegates] Join our call to stop the sale of .org

[Joao Luis Silva Damas]

Thank you Andrew, for keeping providing more details, though one would want to know even more.

I do have a question regarding something you mention below which is not yet clear for me: as you mention PIR operated the ONG/NGO registries. I assume these are part of the deal. Is that correct?
Unlike .org which was created with the intention of providing a namespace for non-commercial organisations but had, in fact, turned into just another big gTLD mostly like .com or .net, those two new gTLDs were created with explicit intents and policies in place so that we didn’t have a repeat of the evolution of .org. What will become of those two gTLDs? Any details?

Thank you
Joao Luis Silva Damas
ISOC-ES

> On 26 Nov 2019, at 13:07, Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 07:05:17PM -0500, Alexander Blom via Chapter-delegates wrote:
> 
>> In May 2002, ICANN formulated a number of criteria for the reassignment of
>> the .org Top Level Domain
> 
> PIR has an agreement with ICANN.  ICANN adopts policies on the basis
> of ICANN consensus, and the agreement with PIR was subject to that
> process.  So I think it is strange to talk about the reassignment
> process from 2002 and not to pay attention to any of the other changes
> to the registry market that have been undertaken since then. 
> 
>> We believe that the 2019 decision of ISOC Global to sell PIR to private
>> equity firm Ethos Capital is not in line with ICANN’s criteria from 2002
>> and the subsequent promise from ISOC Global.
> 
> Why do you believe that?  ISOC created PIR to deliver value to .org
> registrants, and subsequently supported PIR in the creation of various
> IDN TLDs and the NGO/ONG pair.  It worked: PIR is a viable operation
> and Ethos wants to buy the whole thing, not just the ability to
> operate those registries.  We believe that people who acquire another
> company at sigificant cost do not want to tear it down, and what we
> understand about the investment strategy suggests that to us as well.
> So we believe that the ongoing operation of PIR will in fact continue
> in support of its registrants, because that's who will need to be
> satisfied in order to continue using the services of PIR.
> 
>> Despite ISOC Global's assurances to the contrary, we share the misgivings
>> of the international community about giving a single privately owned entity
>> the power to raise tariffs, implement rights protection mechanisms possibly
>> leading to censorship, and suspend domains at the request of local
>> governments.
> 
> These issues are unrelated to the proposed transaction, and are in
> fact part of the existing agreement that PIR has with ICANN.  That
> agreement emerged from the ICANN community and its processes.
> 
> There is a good argument to be made that ISOC is in a difficult
> position in talking about the way ICANN operates because no matter
> what we say, we appear conflicted due to our ongoing dependence on
> PIR.  If we are critical, it suggests that we are fighting with ICANN
> for some sort of benefit to ourselves.  If we are supportive, people
> say that we must be supporting something inside ICANN for our own
> pecuniary advantage due to PIR.  And if we are silent, people note it
> and attribute it to whatever financial advantage we might get in the
> result.
> 
> The financial link between the Internet Society's budget and the TLD
> registry business has been the subject of some commentary over the
> years, and this transaction would break that link while yet providing
> the Internet Society the money it relies upon today.  That money today
> goes in part to the support of chapters, to the support of connecting
> the unconnected, to supporting our interconnectivity work in places
> that are still suffering from poor transborder links and trombone
> routing.  It goes today to our Foundation efforts such as the Beyond
> the Net grants, and the financial support of the IETF, IGFs both
> globally and locally, and schools of Internet governance.  Ensuring
> that support is in place for our community in perpetuity is a really
> significant advantage.  The Internet is much more than the domain name
> system or, especially, the TLD registry market.
> 
> I believe that this transaction is good for Internet Society chapters
> and members.  I also believe it is good for the Internet and its
> advancement.  I even believe it is good for .org, because it will have
> an investor who wants to build on the prior success of PIR and make
> PIR stronger -- an investment that ISOC can't make because we are
> dependent on the income from PIR's operation.
> 
> I hope you will reconsider your call.  I will be available to speak to
> the ChAC at its next call if the ChAC wants me to -- in any case, I
> will be on the phone at that meeting if I am welcome.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Society
> sullivan at isoc.org
> +1 416 731 1261
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/