[Chapter-delegates] ISOC Portugal Chapter position on the .ORG sale issue

[José Legatheaux Martins]

Dear all,

Justo for your information:

Yesterday took place a General Assembly of the Portuguese Chapter
where a vote on a on the ".ORG sale" took place. The previous public
statement of the board of the Chapter was unanimously approved. That
position is attached.

How we got there:

1) In 13/1/2020, ISOC Portugal board made public a position on the
".ORG sale" issue. The document had as introduction all materials we
could assemble on the subject: positions in favor, criticisms,
official documents of the BoT of ISOC, ... etc. The Portuguese version
is available here:

https://isoc.pt/consulta-sobre-org-sale/

2) Some days after, we started a public consultation of our membership
on the issue, based on all the information assembled as well as on the
chapter board position. The results of this inquiry lead to a result
of around 25% of respondents supporting the position of the BoT of
ISOC, and around 75% sharing our concerns on the sale. The number of
responses the inquiry got corresponds to about 20% of the members that
in general open the email messages sent to our membership. Obviously,
we do not know the opinion of those that do not answered.

3) Yesterday, a formal voted position was approved by the assembly.
Although it was unanimously approved by the members physically present
in the assembly, numbers presented above  in 2) show better the
sentiment of the members that cared to answer our enquiry.

The new statements of Ethos on the issue were considered not relevant
to change our position.

José Legatheaux
ISOC POrtugal President


============ ANNEX ===========

Public position of the board of ISOC Portugal on the .ORG sale issue,
approved by the general assembly of the Chapter in 26/2/2020

The reasons that led us to call for a reversal of the sale are related
to a set of doubts and questions that this operation raises. Some of
them are presented below.

1) Consistency with our previous positions on .PT management

The management of TLD domains with numerous registered subdomains
always frees up an important financial margin. How should these
financial resources be used? In our opinion, this depends on the
nature of the TLD.

The choice of a TLD to register our subdomain is determined by several
factors, including price, personal taste, message to be transmitted,
etc. In the case of domains with historical, sentimental, identity or
nationality / belonging weight, such as many ccTLD domains such as
.PT, .BR, .NL, .FR, .EU, etc. or as for example .ORG, .EDU, .MIL and
many of the same type, the financial surplus released must be placed
at the service of the community that adheres to the domain and that
identifies with it. In the case of ccTLDs, the State and civil society
should, in our opinion, maintain control over the management of the
domain and the resources released by it.

This was the sense of the allocation of the .ORG management to ISOC.
The .ORG sale is against that spirit.

2) Why should ISOC be the exclusive beneficiary of the added value
that the .ORG sale provides? ISOC limited itself to professionally and
technically efficient management of .ORG. The only “advertising” done
was limited to advertising the “not-for-profit” character of the
management and the community that gave rise and caressed the domain.

Why not revert to that community now, part of that added value? ISOC
is not the only non-profit organization that promotes and defends an
open, free and service-oriented Internet. Many of the reactions of
disappointment came from exactly those entities that feel subordinate,
some of which are listed above.

3) At the limit, ISOC is in an ethically unhealthy position since, of
course, the new owner of the PIR, a private entity whose objective is
to maximize the profit of its investors, will tend to increase the
prices of .ORG registrations. That is, the benefit of the ISOC may
result in a loss for other .ORG entities.

4) After all, what is the ISOC's position on the functioning of ICANN?
Although this is not part of ISOC's current strategic plan, the fact
is that for a long time ISOC was a strong supporter of the
“multistakeholder” model of Internet management. One of the greatest
exponents of the success of this model is ICANN, its management from
the root of the DNS and its regulation of TLDs (not linked to
countries).

This solution is not without controversy. Several countries, some for
unavoidable reasons, believe that the "role played by ICANN should be
attributed to a United Nations body and accuse ICANN of being an agent
of the interests of the great American global companies that operate
on the Internet".

Several times we have had to defend ICANN from these attacks, or these
"sins". As do countless ISOC activists who actively participate in the
activities of ICANN advisory committees.

The management of .ORG was carried out in the last 17 years by ISOC,
which now intends to sell the domain. The sale involves potential
conflicts of interest with former ICANN employees. ICANN may be called
upon to make a decision on the deal: to authorize or veto it. You may
also need to define clearer supplementary "periods of disgust" rules
for your senior employees.

It would be interesting to know what recommendations the ISOC BoT
would give to ISOC members with presence in ICANN bodies that were
called upon to comment on the matter. It seems to us that the answer
can only be: proceed according to your conscience, as the ISOC BoT
does not speak.

We believe that if this position is the only one compatible with the
sale, ISOC should go on to say publicly that it does not comment on
Internet governance issues and also declare that its numerous Chapters
that are ICANN “At Large” members, they are on their own when speaking
out on ICANN matters.

5) ISOC is not obliged to investigate this, but does the value
proposed by Ethos Capital for the acquisition suggest a potentially
speculative business plan?

In addition, does the presence of former senior ICANN employees at
Ethos Capital not make the process objectionable in terms of lack of
transparency and potential conflicts of interest? Wouldn't there be
less controversial alternatives to the secrecy with which this process
was conducted?

6) Finally, a not-for-profit entity that wants to have a social and
not merely technical role, and that wants to have individuals
associated members, activists in its causes, must fight for its
funding and involve members, including individual ones, in obtaining
that funding.

This struggle is a guarantee of the association's link to the
community it intends to serve, even if it seeks more resources from
“rich” donors.

In conclusion

In short, the reputational losses from the sale to ISOC are greater
than the immediate financial advantages. In addition, a non-profit
entity, whose financing comes mainly from an investment fund, will
tend to withdraw and dispense with the hearing of its individual
members and of the chapters, and to concentrate its action on
essentially technical and not controversial issues. We feel legitimate
to have fears about the potential evolution of the governance model of
such an entity.

The Internet is an admirable communications and collaboration
infrastructure. Like any technology, it can be used for good or for
evil. The future impact of the Internet on Humanity is not,
essentially, a technological issue, much less a business like any
other.