Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [At-Large] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG
What I ask myself is:Why the rush and secrecy? A deal of that importance should have been been discussed in public. ISOC should have made a public offer. Who knows - maybe the Bill Gates Foundation would have bought it; and would have continued to operate it as nonprofit (obviously using the revenues for a while to reimburse the purchase costs).Who within ISOC was consulted? Has an external audit company vetted the numbers? How do we know this wasn't sold for just 5 years revenues? Shouldn't potential take-over clients have asked to make long-term commitments? What if the new owners sell this to North Korea - or China?Have kick-backs been paid; and to whom? And why?The new owners will WANT to sell it; they are VC money: they need an exit. To whom do they sell? They need to double the inventory (domain count) to show "growth": how will they do it? Give a .org for free and without consent to all .com owners at registrar level (the .xyz model)?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Date: 11/22/19 19:39 (GMT-05:00) To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [At-Large] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG Agree Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:32:47 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG Replying to Maureen’s initial question, I think that before signing off a document against the sale of PIR I believe that we need to understand why we are against this sale. Personally, my motivation has nothing to do with the risk of price increase - I think that I made it clear when submitting comments about the .org contract renewal, well before the fate of PIR was known. My being upset is because this transaction, based on purely financial considerations, has broken the trust that ISOC was the champion of the interests of a wide community, spanning from individual users to the non-profit community, and that would have continued playing that role supporting a registry that was providing a safe harbour for those folks. The trust was not based on the dollar more, dollar less, of the yearly fees, but on the stance that PIR had about practices of an industry dominated by commercial interests. I believe that we need to have a deep discussion among ourselves before taking a decision, that should not result in a simple signature under a document, but a motivated argumentation. If and when we do this, there will be no problem in finding ourselves in the company of odd bedfellows - if OTOH we do not do this preliminary work the risk of being confused with other commercial interests and having our voice diluted, if not even misunderstood, is quite high. Cheers, Roberto
Good questions all From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Friday, November 22, 2019 at 9:07 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [At-Large] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG What I ask myself is: Why the rush and secrecy? A deal of that importance should have been been discussed in public. ISOC should have made a public offer. Who knows - maybe the Bill Gates Foundation would have bought it; and would have continued to operate it as nonprofit (obviously using the revenues for a while to reimburse the purchase costs). Who within ISOC was consulted? Has an external audit company vetted the numbers? How do we know this wasn't sold for just 5 years revenues? Shouldn't potential take-over clients have asked to make long-term commitments? What if the new owners sell this to North Korea - or China? Have kick-backs been paid; and to whom? And why? The new owners will WANT to sell it; they are VC money: they need an exit. To whom do they sell? They need to double the inventory (domain count) to show "growth": how will they do it? Give a .org for free and without consent to all .com owners at registrar level (the .xyz model)? Thanks, Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Date: 11/22/19 19:39 (GMT-05:00) To: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [At-Large] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG Agree Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 7:32:47 PM To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; At Large <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] EFF : Nonprofit Community Stands Together to Protect .ORG Replying to Maureen’s initial question, I think that before signing off a document against the sale of PIR I believe that we need to understand why we are against this sale. Personally, my motivation has nothing to do with the risk of price increase - I think that I made it clear when submitting comments about the .org contract renewal, well before the fate of PIR was known. My being upset is because this transaction, based on purely financial considerations, has broken the trust that ISOC was the champion of the interests of a wide community, spanning from individual users to the non-profit community, and that would have continued playing that role supporting a registry that was providing a safe harbour for those folks. The trust was not based on the dollar more, dollar less, of the yearly fees, but on the stance that PIR had about practices of an industry dominated by commercial interests. I believe that we need to have a deep discussion among ourselves before taking a decision, that should not result in a simple signature under a document, but a motivated argumentation. If and when we do this, there will be no problem in finding ourselves in the company of odd bedfellows - if OTOH we do not do this preliminary work the risk of being confused with other commercial interests and having our voice diluted, if not even misunderstood, is quite high. Cheers, Roberto
participants (2)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Jonathan Zuck