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

Thu Nov 28 04:29:42 PST 2019

I fully support the objections put forward by Richard in his message below.
I am deeply concerned with objections 3, 4 and 5. All other objections
are not that much relevant for me.

In the light of objection 3 and 4, the current deal is a disaster, and
clearly not in ISOC's best interest.

All the best,
José

President of ISOC Portugal (2019 - 2020)
https://legatheaux.eu

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 12:14, Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/