[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: Trying to improve residual value from the outcome of the .org wars

[Richard Hill]

Dear George,

 

Thank you for this.

 

You state: “It astonishes me that the opposing sides (if one can describe the situation in that manner) have never yet come forward to engage in serious discussion regarding alternatives that might be more acceptable all around than what we are heading to now”

 

It seems to me that this situation has arisen because of the closed, secretive process used to make the deal. I understand that the proponents are convinced that this was the best way to proceed, but it has made it essentially impossible to engage in a discussion regarding alternatives.

 

You ask whether “talking with the parties involved in the sale, in a non-confrontational manner, not to negotiate but to brainstorm makes sense”.  From my point of view, a precondition for any such talks would be disclosure of much more information. And all talks should be open and public. I don’t see much point in more back-room discussions.

 

Best,

Richard

 

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky via Chapter-delegates
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 05:08
To: Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Fwd: Trying to improve residual value from the outcome of the .org wars

 

I have just posted this to the ISOC Policy List.





Begin forwarded message:

 

From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>

Subject: Trying to improve residual value from the outcome of the .org wars

Date: March 1, 2020 at 11:05:51 PM EST

To: ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>

Cc: Dainow Brandt <bd at thinkmetrics.com>, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>

 

[For reasons of time and length, this is a more non-nuanced post than I would really like to have made.]

 

 I feel very sympathetic to what Brandt has written below.  We are indeed in a mess, partially self-inflicted, and it has caused the greatest rupture ever in ISOC-member-community relations. However I do disagree with what I think is a major implication of his narrative; I think that we can and should be involved and try to do better.

 

Here's how I see the situation.  The sale is either going to go through or it is not going to go through; for the purpose of this discussion I am not taking a stand on that.  Either way we have a significant mess to clean up, to the extent that it is possible to do so. 

 

If the sale goes through, I want to ensure to the best of my ability that what makes .org special is preserved.  In this case, perception shapes reality; if a lot of people believe that .org is an important institution in the domain name world and a haven for not-for-profits and is not 'just another registry,' then it is so on the strength of those beliefs.   This seems to be the case, so that preserving as much of that environment and culture becomes very important.  Another issue that we will be faced with is how to preserve the best that ISOC has to offer and not let this incident cripple an organization that has been so important i the past and has the potential to continue its good work.  The fracture with a signifiant part of the membership is serious, but we shouldn't let it have existential consequences.  There's too much good there to save.

 

If the sale doesn't go through, then ISOC will still want to divest itself of PIR dnd  therefore of .org.  If divestiture is certain, and based upon current rhetoric it appears to be, then ISOC will need strong guidance to ensure that there is a process and an end result that are both generally acceptable to the community overall.  There will also remain a lot of healing between organization and membership that will have to be tended to.

 

In either case, there's a lot of work to be done, and in either case, there's a lot of value in working to achieve the best possible result rather than just letting competitive and commercial forces take their own routes and present us with what will be essentially an organizational train wreck.

 

It astonishes me that the opposing sides (if one can describe the situation in that manner) have never yet come forward to engage in serious discussion regarding alternatives that might be more acceptable all around than what we are heading to now, and it was in the spirit of forcing that to happen that I proposed a meeting to brainstorm alternatives outside of the boxes that the two sides in which the two sides exist.  I view most  all of the current verbal haranguing as 'talking at each other' rather than 'talking with each other.'  Progress depends upon doing the latter rather than the former.  Some of the people on this list seem to understand that, but others appear not to.

 

I have indications that Ethos understands this much better today than earlier when funding for an exploratory discussion dried up.  I regard this as a positive sign.  I ask members of this list, contributors and lurkers, if any of them feel that talking with the parties involved in the sale, in a non-confrontational manner, not to negotiate but to brainstorm makes sense and whether they would accept  it.  If you see no other alternatives but to fight the sale to the end and/or to demonize certain parties, then don't bother to reply.  But if you believe that no matter what the current prognosis, there's both room and necessity to contribute to make the end state as good as possible for the actors and especially for the .org community, them I'd very much like to hear from you. We may be able to do better, possibly much better, than the train wreck that is quite possible and that will affect our entire community negatively.  

 

We would like to revive the idea of such a brainstorming.  There is absolutely no guarantee of success; these actions may help, or they may not.  But if we stay isolated in our silos of choice and don't try, we'll never know, and what a shame that would be. 

 

I am attaching an informal description of the proposed first meeting for your reference.

 

George 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200302/3766a3e6/attachment.htm>