[Chapter-delegates] The kinds of objections (was Re: Join our call to stop the sale of .org)

[Richard Hill]

Dear Andrew,

First of all, I would like once again to thank you for continuing to engage
with us on this matter. You have said that you are just doing your job, but
I believe that another CEO might have had a different view of their job and
might not have engaged as you have. So please do accept my thanks, even if
our views differ.

I believe that you have captured some of the issues below, but not all.  So
here are my comments, organized in headings based on yours below. My
comments are personal, except for the first paragraph below which is
identified as an ISOC-CH view.

1. The Consultative Objection

The view of ISOC-CH is that we need a more open and transparent decision and
decision making process.  So it's not just about consultation, it's about
transparency.

My own personal view is that the entire process should have been fully
public.  Consider what would have happened if, for whatever reason, PIR
could no longer manage .org, so that ICANN had to redelegate it (find a
different registry). ICANN would have used a fully transparent and public
process for the redelegation.

I fully understand that ISOC has no legal obligation to go through a
transparent process (whether public or just within ISOC), but I think that
it should have done so voluntarily. 

And it should have done so even if that might have resulted in a lower
price, because maximizing the price should not have been ISOC's main goal.

3. Reputational damage [THIS IS AN ITEM THAT YOU HAVE NOT LISTED BELOW]

The public outcry regarding this deal has damaged ISOC's reputation. 

It should have been obvious to the ISOC leadership that there would be
public outcry, so, for that reason alone, the process should have been
transparent and ISOC should have refused to consider the deal on the terms
offered (which apparently include stringent non-disclosure).

4. Divergent view on ethics [THIS IS AN ITEM THAT YOU HAVE NOT LISTED BELOW]

It is clear that ISOC leadership on the one hand and a significant portion
of ISOC's member, and civil society in general, on the other hand, do not
have the same views regarding the ethics of the situation.

That disconnect is very worrisome: how can it be that ISOC leadership sees
nothing wrong in a deal that has been vigorously denounced by civil society?

That disconnect needs to be fixed.

Regarding Ethos, I am stunned that a company would use a name hinting at
ethical behavior, and then behave as they have done, namely to negotiate
such a deal in secret and to impose strict non-disclosure.

Sure, it is legal, and sure, it is done in many commercial settings, but, in
my view (and that of others), this setting is different and secrecy is not
appropriate.

5. The deal may not be in ISOC's best interests [THIS IS AN ITEM THAT YOU
HAVE NOT LISTED BELOW]

First of all, if money were the only objective, then there is no evidence
that this deal is the best possible deal. I know that you keep saying that
it is, but that cannot be proven, absent a public bidding process.

Who is to say that some coalition of Indian entities would not have out-bid
Ethos?

More importantly, I don't think that money should be the only objective.
Maintaining and improving ISOC's reputation should also be an important
objective.

In that light, the current deal is a disaster, and clearly not in ISOC's
best interest.

Best,
Richard





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-
> delegates
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 09:36
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] The kinds of objections (was Re: Join our
> call to stop the sale of .org)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I appreciate this message; it's helpful to be clear about the kinds of
> objections people have.  But I'm not sure your list is complete.  I
> think there are two large categories of objection, which can be
> distinguished, and I am not sure I understand them all.  Below is an
> attempt to lay out some objections I think people have, but I'm not
> sure it's complete and I'm not sure I'm describing them correctly.
> I'd welcome feedback on the categorization or the attempts to
> describe.
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 09:54:50AM +0200, Coenraad Loubser via Chapter-
> delegates wrote:
> 
> > It's clear that the first announcement from ISOC should've been to
> the
> > effect of: "Should we detach .ORG PIR from ISOC?" rather than "it's
> getting
> > sold." - and that the first release to the effect of a sale, if
> agreed
> > upon, should be such that it could read: "It is the consensus of the
> ISOC
> > constituents that the .ORG PIR should be sold."
> 
> 	1.  The consultative objection
> 
> I think this description is of one particular line of objection, which
> has sub-categories.  This objection is basically what I think of as a
> consultative one: "[people] were not consulted".  There is more than
> one expansion of [people].
> 
> 	1.1		Consultation inside the Internet Society
> 
> One expansion is that the chapters were not consulted in advance.
> Another is that the members of ISOC were not consulted.  Not all
> members are chapter members (and organizational members are a
> different class).  Both of these positions in effect claim that the
> appointment of people to the Board of Trustees is inadequate for
> governance of certain kinds of decisions, and in the case of such
> decisions the chapters or members need to be consulted directly.  I
> think I understand this position, though I think it is at odds with
> our governance structures.
> 
> 	1.2		Consultation outside the Internet Society
> 
> A different line of objection I have seen is that the [people]
> expansion should have been the ICANN community, or "the .org
> community" (which seems to be really a stand-in for a certain stripe
> of global non-profits, and not everyone with a .org name
> registration), or all .org registrants, or the global community of
> anyone interested in the Internet.  In this case, the consultation is
> not in any way constrained by ISOC governance rules.  It isn't clear
> to me how this sort of thing would work, but I guess I can imagine a
> few ways to start.  One could maintain that this is an obligation ISOC
> took on (implicitly, since it's definitely not explicit in any
> agreement or commitment) when it took on the .org registry back in
> 2002-3.
> 
> 	2.	The public good objection
> 
> This objection is very different from the previous one, because it
> basically claims that there is no legitimate way for ISOC to act to
> remove the responsibility to .org.  The idea here is that .org is not
> a business and can't be conceived that way.  Therefore, if ISOC wanted
> to do this, it would be removing its own legitimacy and attacking .org
> in some deep way.  (I think I'm not doing a very good job at
> describing this, so if this seems like a caricature, I apologise.  I
> only get the gist of this position, and don't really understand it.)
> This is probaly often related to expressions of 1.2 above, but really
> they're distinct things.
> 
> 	2.1		Not-for-profit is required
> 
> A subsidiary version of this is that there is some essential quality
> that flows from the designation of PIR as a non-profit or (I think
> more plausibly) as owned by a not-for-profit entity.  This objection
> is not exactly to the sale of the operation _at all_, but to the idea
> that if it could be transferred it could never be to a for-profit
> entity.
> 
> This is the position, I _think_, that is contained in statements that
> it's wrong to talk about PIR as a business (as I heard in a radio
> interview yesterday) or that it is illegitimate "even to consider" the
> idea of selling .org.
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting any or all of these positions would yield different results
> about whether one should ever consult (and whom one should if so)
> about the idea of ISOC selling PIR.  But before we have that
> discussion, I'd like to know whether I've understood the different
> lines of objection and whether I've missed any.
> 
> 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/