[Chapter-delegates] Fwd: Trying to improve residual value from the outcome of the .org wars
Mike Godwin
mnemonic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 11:17:23 PST 2020
George writes:
'If the sale doesn't go through, then ISOC will still want to divest itself
of PIR dnd therefore of .org.'
I don't know where this idea comes from. ISOC has no institutional comment
"to divest itself of PIR and therefore of .org" -- except in the context of
a particular offer from Ethos that we reviewed and accepted after
considerable due diligence. I've never voted for the proposition that that
ISOC should "divest itself of PIR and therefore of .org" if the transaction
with Ethos does not go through.
Mike
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:08 PM George Sadowsky via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Brandt Dainow via InternetPolicy <
> internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> I attended yesterday’s webinar with Ethos and was profoundly
> disappointed. I don’t think there is any point in further conversations
> with Ethos. Erik’s attempt to persuade was so far from my thinking it made
> me see any agreement or compromise is impossible. Erik talked business.
> His perspective is that the entire internet domain management system, from
> ICANN down, is a business - the business of selling the ability to have a
> website. He talked about branding, expansion, customers, market share
> etc. He talked about changing from a .org to a different domain type as
> nothing more than a choice of equal (and competing) products. To him, all
> that is happening is the PIR business is being sold by one business to
> another business.
>
> I don’t see the .org registration system that way. To me, it is a public
> utility. So are all the TLD’s. I don’t think its OK for society to run
> all its public utilities, in any sector, as commercial businesses. .Org is
> the last free space on the internet. I’ve worked on the internet since
> 1988 and the web since 1992. I’ve watched a free open terrain of boundless
> possibilities get chopped up and enclosed by greedy corporations until this
> is the last bit left unpolluted. In some ways I feel like my life’s work
> has been destroyed.
>
> The very points Erik put forward in an effort to persuade us were points
> which would only persuade a business owner looking at it his way. The fact
> he used these points shows he has no comprehension of the real motivations
> behind the concerns of the .org community.
>
> What Ethos offer doesn’t, and never can, address all the concerns of the
> .org community. To do so would bind Ethos to a degree no sensible business
> could accept. It would require running the PIR like a public utility –
> with accountability, transparency, democratic governance, etc. Of course,
> ISOC needs to move in that direction as well. But that will only happen in
> the face of terrific resistance from the vested interests currently
> enjoying their dominance of ISOC leadership. I’m not sure ISOC is fixable.
> I realise now there is a profound difference between what I joined ISOC
> for and what ISOC leadership think ISOC is for. I joined because I wanted
> to be part of a global community working to maintain the good order of the
> internet, develop it in a manner which benefited all humanity, represented
> the concerns and interests of its members, and which maintained a watch
> over the internet in general, and used its reputation and reach to preserve
> what is best about the internet. I suspect many others are in the same
> position. It is, of course, my fault. I assumed the missions were
> examples of a deeper and wider concern by ISOC for the internet in
> general. In reality they are the only things ISOC cares about.
>
> 10 years of membership have taught me ISOC is only interested in the
> members as tools for fulfilling it’s individual missions, is opposed to
> genuine democratic governance, and has no concern for the general state of
> the internet. It does not see its missions in terms of the wider health of
> the internet – it is narrowly focused within those missions only. The
> individual missions are very worthy, but I joined ISOC for more than just
> those. Meanwhile, leadership demonstrates a profound ignorance of social,
> cultural, political and civic issues and the full range of global
> perspectives. In truth, ISOC is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, there
> is no competing organisation which does care about the overall health of
> the internet and has the reach to do anything about it. ISOC is the closest
> to what is needed, but still miles away from it.
>
> The reality is there is no one standing up for the ordinary person on the
> internet. It should be ISOC, but ISOC isn’t up to the task.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20200303/56401cad/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list