[ih] the .ORG nonsense machine rises from the dead, patents and public stewardship

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 05-Feb-24 17:12, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 11:31 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> ISOC's dependence on an ICANN contracted registry is a huge conflict
>> of interest
> 
> 
> This is a view that is immediately and intuitively very appealing. As is
> the act of declaring the conflict.
> 
> A conflict of interest is an arrangement that produces the opportunity
> for an unintended and undesirable bias in people or organizations
> holding power.  (Beyond that natural challenge of power corrupting
> pretty much anyone.)
> 
> Unfortunately, taking the nature of this concern and trying to apply it
> to the specifics of ISOC's role with .org, it is not easily successful
> for me.  I'm not at all clear exactly what the conflict is between.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain exactly what that conflict is?

I'll try, and I should start by noting that I was Chair of the ISOC Board
when the decision to negotiate the original PIR deal was made. At that
time, I abstained from the Board vote because I perceived a conflict
of interest (for ISOC, not for me, otherwise I would have recused myself).

At that time, ISOC was flat broke. It was having difficulty balancing
the books. So the money from PIR wasn't just welcome, it was either that
or riding off into the sunset. Yet, ISOC was supposed to be neutral,
speaking for the worldwide Internet community as a whole, and also
acting as legal godmother for the IETF, and as the final appeal body
for IETF disputes. ICANN was a free-of-charge service provider for
the IETF (the IANA service), and formally obliged to take the IETF's
instructions in certain cases. ICANN was also making a lot of money
out of its clerical functions (basically writing down names and
numbers in a great big ledger).

(BTW, ICANN existed not because the Internet community wanted it,
but because the Clinton Administration imposed it. As Dave Crocker
knows as well as anybody, attempts at creating a community-based
solution to the IANA problem were overridden by the White House.)

So I couldn't clearly see how ISOC could be certain to retain its
independence or neutrality if it became dependent for its survival
on a registry operator that depended for its own survival on ICANN's
goodwill. I saw, and still see, a *potential* for a gross conflict
of interest if certain kinds of dispute emerged. That's why I
abstained from the ISOC Board vote, and nothing fundamental has
changed since then.

     Brian