It's not wrong, but its context is disingenuous. At its superficial level it's fear-mongering (you can't automatically trust a domain just 'cause it's in dot-org, a characteristic common to almost all TLDs). At a deeper level it's an attempt to discredit (or at least dilute) the massive and nearly universal opposition to the PIR conversion by non-profit organizations. On the whole I consider it a FUD piece. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Fri., Dec. 6, 2019, 1:29 a.m. Jonathan Zuck, <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Agreed! That said, it's not wrong.

Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org

------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch < evanleibovitch@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, December 5, 2019 12:05:52 PM *To:* Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Cc:* LAC-Discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] NYTimes: The .Org Mirage

Clearly the crisis-management PR firm hired by ISOC is busy earning its keep.

___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56

How would an "expert" have approached this topic of trust in .ORG? I'm not trying to be a jerk here but living in DC for 30 years, I've seen LOTS of .ORG sites that were fronts for corporations or other disingenuous actors. I know Evan is upset about the fact that it's being written now, in the context of this controversy, but from the perspective of trust, are folks (are WE?!) right to be trusting of .ORG domains in their current form? On 12/5/19, 1:35 PM, "John McCormac" <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote: On 05/12/2019 18:22, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > It's not wrong, but its context is disingenuous. > > At its superficial level it's fear-mongering (you can't automatically > trust a domain just 'cause it's in dot-org, a characteristic common to > almost all TLDs). > > At a deeper level it's an attempt to discredit (or at least dilute) the > massive and nearly universal opposition to the PIR conversion by > non-profit organizations. > > On the whole I consider it a FUD piece. It is worse than a FUD piece. It is knocking copy with token people who might appear to have some expertise but are, in reality, non-expert. It is classic negative PR. All that's missing is the "Some people say". Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************

It seems like the column could be an argument for putting constraints on .org registrations.  But that ought to be a separate discussion from the merits of this specific sale  Bill Jouris  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM, John McCormac<jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote: On 05/12/2019 18:56, Jonathan Zuck wrote:

How would an "expert" have approached this topic of trust in .ORG? By showing the good that .ORG and PIR has done. PR 101.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here but living in DC for 30 years, I've seen LOTS of .ORG sites that were fronts for corporations or other disingenuous actors. I know Evan is upset about the fact that it's being written now, in the context of this controversy, but from the perspective of trust, are folks (are WE?!) right to be trusting of .ORG domains in their current form? The intent, from what I have read, with this piece is to do down .ORG and diminish its credibility by presenting negative examples. It isn't a question of "trust" but rather the manipulation of the public perception of .ORG as being just another gTLD. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac  *  e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2            *  web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount  *  Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford      *  Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland        *  https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE            *  Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 03:16, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

That said, I wouldn’t mind disincentives to profiteering in the domain such as capping after market prices at documented cost of owning the domain. And certainly .ORG could use even more aggressive DNS Abuse protections such as those in use by .EU and .UK.,

For what it's worth... In the ISOC list I have advanced a compromise position. The summary of it is that the Ethos deal goes through but that 7% of the proceeds (about $80M) are earmarked by ISOC towards creation of a new community-run nonprofit registry that would either apply for or acquire a TLD. Most of the money would be used to run the registry until it achieved sustainability and the rest would be used to subsidize the identity-change expenses of nonprofits wanting to switch. The intent is to essentially reboot .org under a new name, to maintain at least one globally accessible mission-driven TLD now that we know .org won't play that role. When I first proposed this I considered it a fallback if the would-be ICANN and PA obstacles proved ineffective, as an alternative to the inevitable court challenges which I submit nobody will win. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that it may even be a preferred Plan A since I don't think that killing the deal will really take us back to the pre-deal status quo. Trust in ISOC by its community will remain vastly diminished, and now all know that it is trying to unload PIR. My proposal has earned mixed reviews so far. Those want to take a Principled Stand of kill-the-deal-or-bust hate it. A few private emails from people whose advise I often solicit -- including one ISOC trustee -- like the idea, at least in principle. - Evan

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 03:46, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Managing brand transition costs sounds a black hole that would be difficult to do in reality.

I was just thinking a fund that could offset (to a limit) defray costs for registrants who see the cost of changing their domain. (Not sure I see it fully as brand management. The only high-profile .org registrant that uses its domain as its brand -- Facebook's internet.org -- is bring deprecated in favour of "Free Basics")

What do you think about capping resale prices?

I haven't participated in the pricing part of the current debate because I think it's a distraction from the more important registrant issues at hand (such as privacy and resistance to arbitrary governmental takedown) There are a whole bunch of anti-domaining, anti-parking and other trust-building policies that could be brought to a re-invented nonprofit registry. I sure don't have all those answers but there are plenty of IG wonks who might. Please find below my complete proposal as it was sent to the ISOC policy list: Hello all, I've pulled back from the discussions as it seems, at this moment, that everyone has made their salient points. We're now just repeating ourselves, talking past each other, and now FUD-slinging is happening in both directions. Positions are being entrenched and it's starting to look as if this is only going to get resolved through court challenges and lawsuits which both challengers and supporters are confident they'll win. At least in my own experience, when that happens the only ones who win are the lawyers, and for years the issue will consume the time of many people who have better things to do. This is especially sad when seeing that everyone involved, in their own way, appears to be acting in good faith and wants what they think is best for the future of ISOC, dot-org, global Internet users and indeed those not yet connected. To that end I propose a path that may enable everyone to save face and get what (I hope) everyone wants. Like every negotiation, nobody gets 100% what they came for but everyone has something that achieves their ultimate objectives. Best of all we get to de-escalate, catch our breaths, move forward and conserve the resources that would otherwise go to litigation. Obviously, this is only preliminary, most details are missing and numbers can be played with. But could this be at least a reasonable starting point? *The proposal:* - The Ethos transaction proceeds as-is, with the current protesters and petition signers agreeing not to oppose it on legal or regulatory grounds (and in turn support this path) - Of the $1.135B that it is set to receive, ISOC earmarks 7% towards creation of a community-governed nonprofit organization with the primary objective of creating a new top-level domain for nonprofits. Of that 7% (approximately $80M), about $50M will be used to create, promote and operate the registry for a number of years, and the remainder will be used as a fund to support the one-time identity-change expenses of qualifying .org registrants who wish to move to the new TLD. - This new community nonprofit will be incorporated in a GDPR country and have a bylaw-entrenched commitment not to sell any assets so long as it is liquid. Registrants in the new TLD will be voting stakeholders, using a model based on what's used at CIRA or other nonprofit ccTLDs. - Neither ISOC, Ethos Capital nor any of their associated organizations will impede the creation of this TLD. Indeed, they will recommend to ICANN an expedient approval, whether by acquisition of an existing TLD or application in the next round. *The intended results:* - ISOC gets the deal it wants for sustaining, stable revenue, just a little less than originally negotiated -- the net is still more than $1B. Plus ISOC is no longer in a conflict of interest when getting involved in DNS policy. - Nothing needs to change in the deal struck (assuming ISOC didn't agree to anything that would inhibit this) - Ethos Capital can do whatever it damn well pleases with .org -- all the new services and innovations they claim to want to do, they can knock themselves out - A stable TLD exists for nonprofits and others who support having a strong mission-driven presence among registries; those who oppose .org going for-profit now get to put up or shut up, and we can assist those choosing to move - A viable alternative exists should the unshackled PIR decide to do anything stupid regarding prices or other policies - The greater ISOC community takes the ... challenges ... presented by its transparency of negotiation as a learning moment, to be used to help it strengthen stakeholder relationships going forward. It gets to do soul searching that can actually affect positive change - We all work together to put out this publicity dumpster fire and let ISOC concentrate on the good stuff it wants to do. - Evan

On 05/12/2019 19:11, Bill Jouris wrote:

It seems like the column could be an argument for putting constraints on .org registrations.  But that ought to be a separate discussion from the merits of this specific sale

That would be the equivalent of going nuclear on the Ethos deal because it would bring up all sorts of validation problems. It would also more than decimate the number of registered .ORG domain names because managed TLDs typically have low regisration volume. The .COOP is a good example. There is brand protection activity in .ORG registrations so unless those historical domain names pass the theoretical validation, the gTLD could lose a few million registrations. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************

Sure, I agree with all of that. However, it IS the case that those NOT “involved in ICANN,” as you put it, DO believe there is something special about .ORG, something more trustworthy than the rest, and this is reinforced by PIRs marketing. WE are tasked with understanding, to the extent possible, and promoting the interests of “individual end users,” and Alan makes the point that Ethos will market this to for-profits, even more than currently, potentially undermining consumer trust (that we’re all admitting here is not justified). So I’m asking you, for just a minute, to put down your ire about this deal as well as your assumption (most likely true) about the malicious intentions of this piece, and think about whether there IS in fact a “trust” issue among individual end users that we should seek to preserve. John has made the point that if REGISTRANTS lose trust in PIR, they will move to ccTLDs and, here too, I’m not sure why we should be concerned about a movement out of .ORG. What am I missing? Most of what we SEEM to be saying is that we want there to be a not-for profit REGISTRY which has very little to do with .ORG. Just trying to get a handle on this. Jonathan From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 2:17 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: "jmcc@hosterstats.com" <jmcc@hosterstats.com>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] NYTimes: The .Org Mirage I'm not sure I understand the question. Anyone involved in ICANN has been made aware that, by and large, there is no reason to trust *any* "open" TLD (whether gTLDs or ccTLDs acting as generics). My upset is with the writing of an article that begins with the strawman assumption that .org is to be trusted then knocks the premise down. It writes in a vacuum as if all other domains don't share the same malaise. In that regard this is misinformation, the use of a kernel of truth to launch targeted bullshit. The history of .org (which has been argued to death in the ISOC list) makes clear that the original purpose of dot-org was as a none-of-the-above TLD, intended for any registrant that dd not go logically into .com, .net, .edu, .gov, .int or .mil. It was a catchall TLD that was suitable for the United Nations Refugee Agency (unhcr.org<http://unhcr.org>) and my personal domain (telly.org<http://telly.org>) and all sorts of other things. Many of those other things were not trustworthy, that's no surprise. The assertion that .org is not just used by nonprofits has been stating the obvious for decades. To call it news now is a deliberate attempt to mislead and divert. Jonathan, you know that I've cared about public trust in ICANN's management of the DNS -- or rather, the lack thereof -- for a long time. This op-ed is not designed to advance public awareness or debate on that topic of trust. It's a targeted use of misinformation to serve a political purpose. - Evan On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 02:56, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: How would an "expert" have approached this topic of trust in .ORG? I'm not trying to be a jerk here but living in DC for 30 years, I've seen LOTS of .ORG sites that were fronts for corporations or other disingenuous actors. I know Evan is upset about the fact that it's being written now, in the context of this controversy, but from the perspective of trust, are folks (are WE?!) right to be trusting of .ORG domains in their current form? On 12/5/19, 1:35 PM, "John McCormac" <jmcc@hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com>> wrote: On 05/12/2019 18:22, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > It's not wrong, but its context is disingenuous. > > At its superficial level it's fear-mongering (you can't automatically > trust a domain just 'cause it's in dot-org, a characteristic common to > almost all TLDs). > > At a deeper level it's an attempt to discredit (or at least dilute) the > massive and nearly universal opposition to the PIR conversion by > non-profit organizations. > > On the whole I consider it a FUD piece. It is worse than a FUD piece. It is knocking copy with token people who might appear to have some expertise but are, in reality, non-expert. It is classic negative PR. All that's missing is the "Some people say". Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com<mailto:jmcc@hosterstats.com> MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com<http://hosterstats.com> ********************************************************** -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56