Ester Dyson Washington Post Article - Jan 17th
Any thoughts on Esther Dyson's article <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact...> in the Washington Post on Jan 17th? "*Don’t give your dot-org domain away to a private company* One of the Internet’s most trusted assets — the dot-org domain used by nonprofits from UNICEF to your local food bank — is being hijacked. Dot-org, which was built to support nonprofits globally, is being sold to the highest bidder with almost no public discussion or consideration of alternatives. Organizations and their supporters who rely on dot-org for website and email access deserve an open process. The institutions that govern the Internet should be transparent. It is up to those of us who believe in a free and open Internet to demand this deal be reconsidered. ..."
On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
To be clear, I haven't "figured out" anything. Here's what I see:
1. #SaveDotOrg is in active recruitment mode. Thanks to Evan, I was introduced to them so that I could better understand their positions and perhaps gain their feedback on any advice we might deliver to the board. 2. EFF is one of the founding members of #SaveDotOrg 3. EFF is made up primarily of lawyers who take folks to court to protect our civil liberties. They are very good and generally very process oriented. 4. The NRO is regarded as an organization free of conflicts when it comes to domain name policy. They are who I would recruit. 5. The interesting wording in their letter "We have therefore agreed to issue an Inspection Request to ICANN..." 6. Kevin Murphy seems to be suspecting something similar when he says "makes me wonder (aloud, it seems) whether the ASO had received any nudges from other members of the EC before filing the request."
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with it but I'm always interested in the genesis of such a, as Alan put it, "historic action." Make sense?
Sorry to be chiming in late, but just in case this was still a mystery for anyone… No, the EFF wasn’t involved with the NRO’s letter, it was Amy Sample Ward, of NTEN, who called the EC action into being:
From: Amy Sample Ward <amy@nten.org> Subject: [ECAdmin] Request for Emergency Relief Date: 3 December 2019 at 12:15:42 AM AST To: ECAdmin@icann.org, krista.papac@icann.org
Dear Krista Papac, ICANN Complaints
Dear Stephen Deerhake, Keith Drazek, Maureen Hilyard, Manal Ismail,
Empowered Community Administration We call for an immediate freeze on any Board of Staff action pertaining to the .ORG Registry Agreement pending a full and thorough investigation of the following complaints:
• Whether any current or former ICANN Staff or Board Members engaged in corrupt or inappropriate behaviour vis-a-vis the .ORG registry agreement renegotiation and subsequent sale.
• Whether ISOC breached the terms of the agreement on which it was awarded .ORG in 2002 when it sold the .ORG domain. See: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2002-10-14-en
…etc. It came out of the blue, the EC weren’t expecting it, they discussed it, and the NRO was seen as the one of the five that was most neutral and most able to execute in a nonpartisan way. At the time, I was still pro-sale, because I was giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were talking about a reasonable deal. I guess the fact that they were behaving like teenagers at an auction with someone else’s credit card broke on December 1, but it took me a couple more days to run the numbers and see just how far out of whack they were. -Bill
Cool, thanks. This email also prompted the NRO to assure me that it was completely organic, which it obviously was not. Again, not crying foul here. Always just curious. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:36:39 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIR sale…
On Jan 3, 2020, at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
To be clear, I haven't "figured out" anything. Here's what I see:
1. #SaveDotOrg is in active recruitment mode. Thanks to Evan, I was introduced to them so that I could better understand their positions and perhaps gain their feedback on any advice we might deliver to the board. 2. EFF is one of the founding members of #SaveDotOrg 3. EFF is made up primarily of lawyers who take folks to court to protect our civil liberties. They are very good and generally very process oriented. 4. The NRO is regarded as an organization free of conflicts when it comes to domain name policy. They are who I would recruit. 5. The interesting wording in their letter "We have therefore agreed to issue an Inspection Request to ICANN..." 6. Kevin Murphy seems to be suspecting something similar when he says "makes me wonder (aloud, it seems) whether the ASO had received any nudges from other members of the EC before filing the request."
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with it but I'm always interested in the genesis of such a, as Alan put it, "historic action." Make sense?
Sorry to be chiming in late, but just in case this was still a mystery for anyone… No, the EFF wasn’t involved with the NRO’s letter, it was Amy Sample Ward, of NTEN, who called the EC action into being:
From: Amy Sample Ward <amy@nten.org> Subject: [ECAdmin] Request for Emergency Relief Date: 3 December 2019 at 12:15:42 AM AST To: ECAdmin@icann.org, krista.papac@icann.org
Dear Krista Papac, ICANN Complaints
Dear Stephen Deerhake, Keith Drazek, Maureen Hilyard, Manal Ismail,
Empowered Community Administration We call for an immediate freeze on any Board of Staff action pertaining to the .ORG Registry Agreement pending a full and thorough investigation of the following complaints:
• Whether any current or former ICANN Staff or Board Members engaged in corrupt or inappropriate behaviour vis-a-vis the .ORG registry agreement renegotiation and subsequent sale.
• Whether ISOC breached the terms of the agreement on which it was awarded .ORG in 2002 when it sold the .ORG domain. See: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2002-10-14-en
…etc. It came out of the blue, the EC weren’t expecting it, they discussed it, and the NRO was seen as the one of the five that was most neutral and most able to execute in a nonpartisan way. At the time, I was still pro-sale, because I was giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were talking about a reasonable deal. I guess the fact that they were behaving like teenagers at an auction with someone else’s credit card broke on December 1, but it took me a couple more days to run the numbers and see just how far out of whack they were. -Bill
On Jan 20, 2020, at 5:44 PM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: This email also prompted the NRO to assure me that it was completely organic, which it obviously was not. Again, not crying foul here. Always just curious.
I’m not sure what the implication is? Amy, who I wasn’t previously aware of, is a constituent of the Empowered Community, as everyone is. Someone has to call the process into action, if it’s going to be called into action. It’s not defined as something with specific triggers, it has to be called into action to function. Who pulls the trigger is irrelevant, no? What matters is what happens next, and we’re now a week from ICANN’s deadline to respond, and all they’ve done thus far is whine that they don’t understand why they’re being asked to. Which is a pretty weak-ass response to being asked for something by your regulatory oversight. Still, they have another week to make good on it, and a board meeting in the mean-time, so I can be patient and wait and see what they come up with. -Bill
Thankyou, David. I pointed out at the beginning of this disgraceful saga that it is a clear case of insider asset stripping. CW PS: the Washington Post has a pay wall as seen from here. Perhaps we could ask Esther to post a copy of her text.
On 20 Jan 2020, at 17:13, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com <mailto:mackey361@gmail.com>> wrote:
Any thoughts on Esther Dyson's article <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact...> in the Washington Post on Jan 17th?
"Don’t give your dot-org domain away to a private company
One of the Internet’s most trusted assets — the dot-org domain used by nonprofits from UNICEF to your local food bank — is being hijacked. Dot-org, which was built to support nonprofits globally, is being sold to the highest bidder with almost no public discussion or consideration of alternatives. Organizations and their supporters who rely on dot-org for website and email access deserve an open process. The institutions that govern the Internet should be transparent. It is up to those of us who believe in a free and open Internet to demand this deal be reconsidered. ..."
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto: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.
Christopher, I understand the Washington Post limits the number of articles you can read with a paywall. It's probably based on cookies attached to a specific device/browser combo. I believe it's still possible to legally extend the number of articles read by using different browsers on the same device (e.g. Chrome, Safari, FireFox, etc) or use different devices if you have a laptop and mobile device, for instance. There are still limits to the number of articles you can read, of course. Let's hope it never becomes legal to track our Internet use across all devices and browsers. Cheers! David On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:02 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Thankyou, David. I pointed out at the beginning of this disgraceful saga that it is a clear case of insider asset stripping.
CW
PS: the Washington Post has a pay wall as seen from here. Perhaps we could ask Esther to post a copy of her text.
On 20 Jan 2020, at 17:13, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> wrote:
Any thoughts on Esther Dyson's article <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact...> in the Washington Post on Jan 17th?
"*Don’t give your dot-org domain away to a private company*
One of the Internet’s most trusted assets — the dot-org domain used by nonprofits from UNICEF to your local food bank — is being hijacked. Dot-org, which was built to support nonprofits globally, is being sold to the highest bidder with almost no public discussion or consideration of alternatives. Organizations and their supporters who rely on dot-org for website and email access deserve an open process. The institutions that govern the Internet should be transparent. It is up to those of us who believe in a free and open Internet to demand this deal be reconsidered. ..."
_______________________________________________ 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.
Just from the fact that it is appearing in the Washington Post (as opposed to pretty much any other publication), I take it to be an implicit appeal for a political intervention. Perhaps an expression of frustration that ICANN hasn't acted promptly to correct what she sees as a terrible mistake. Bill Jouris On Monday, January 20, 2020, 08:13:33 AM PST, David Mackey <mackey361@gmail.com> wrote: Any thoughts on Esther Dyson's article in the Washington Post on Jan 17th? "Don’t give your dot-org domain away to a private company One of the Internet’s most trusted assets — the dot-org domain used by nonprofits from UNICEF to your local food bank — is being hijacked. Dot-org, which was built to support nonprofits globally, is being sold to the highest bidder with almost no public discussion or consideration of alternatives. Organizations and their supporters who rely on dot-org for website and email access deserve an open process. The institutions that govern the Internet should be transparent. It is up to those of us who believe in a free and open Internet to demand this deal be reconsidered. ..." _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (5)
-
Bill Jouris -
Bill Woodcock -
David Mackey -
Jonathan Zuck -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu