I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed. I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now. This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “Public Interest” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over? I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized. PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi... <http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi...>. PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels <https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels>. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours? Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem. Best regards, Roberto
Thanks Roberto After reading your brainstorming paper, I can confirm my position. We have to question not who is the buyer but why and how the seller is selling .org? SeB Sébastien Bachollet Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 23 nov. 2019 à 23:45, Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> a écrit :
I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed.
I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now.
This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “Public Interest” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over?
I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized.
PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi.... PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?
Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.
Best regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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.
Sebastian I see the reason for ISOC's selling as an issue relating to their *breach of trust* and the subsequent loss of everyone's trust and confidence in ISOC and the ISOC principles PIR were tasked to uphold on behalf of "non-commercial, NGO and nonprofit community" As end-users I see Trust as the basis on which to argue further issues My 2c On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:33 PM Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr> wrote:
Thanks Roberto After reading your brainstorming paper, I can confirm my position. We have to question not who is the buyer but why and how the seller is selling .org? SeB
Sébastien Bachollet Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 23 nov. 2019 à 23:45, Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> a écrit :
I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed.
I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now.
This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “*Public Interest*” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over?
I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized.
PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi.... PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?
Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.
Best regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
I agree with all the points that Roberto has made, that there is a serious breach of trust issue here. It is certainly up to ISOC chapters to hold the ISOC board to account. But is there any role for AtLarge at this level? Join the protest, sign on to the petition? I am not sure that is where we fit in -- but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. What can we ask of ICANN though? We certainly should ask if there were any indications of this sale before or during the discussion re: removing price caps is one thing we can ask. That needs to be clarified. It feels a bit like a sucker punch......... did it come straight out of the blue, or did some people see it coming? If anyone did, what obligations did those people have to inform the community? According to a just established PIR website re: this sale (https://www.keypointsabout.org/), there were no activities that led to the sale before the lifting of the price caps. They maintain there was no connection. The bigger question is what can be done about it, or, more specifically, what should we be asking to be done about it? We could just indicate our displeasure, but that isn't helpful in the end. What are the possible remedies. Can ICANN revisit/adjust the price cap lift without facing a major lawsuit? Can ICANN demand that ISOC/PIR reopen the bidding so a non-profit organization could be chosen as new owner? Can ICANN place restrictions on the .org contracts (don't ask me what that could consist of) that would mitigate the possibility for exploitation at the hands of a venture capital firm? I have been reading tons and tons of e-mails on this issue, but I don't see a lot of answers to the question about what actual/possible remedies might be available here. Marita On 11/24/2019 1:23 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
Sebastian
I see the reason for ISOC's selling as an issue relating to their _breach of trust_ and the subsequent loss of everyone's trust and confidence in ISOC and the ISOC principles PIR were tasked to uphold on behalf of "non-commercial, NGO and nonprofit community" As end-users I see Trust as the basis on which to argue further issues
My 2c
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 7:33 PM Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>> wrote:
Thanks Roberto After reading your brainstorming paper, I can confirm my position. We have to question not who is the buyer but why and how the seller is selling .org? SeB
Sébastien Bachollet Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 23 nov. 2019 à 23:45, Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com <mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>> a écrit :
I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed.
I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now.
This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “*Public Interest*” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over?
I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized.
PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi.... PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?
Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.
Best regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Great start on this Roberto! How much of this could be influenced through, for example, PICs? The mere designation of not for profit status doesn't really guarantee any of this, especially the proactive stuff. I'd love to see something that reduced or eliminated registrations of .Org names by for profit entities as well. Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:45:49 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Brainstorming I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed. I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now. This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “Public Interest” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over? I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized. PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi.... PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours? Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem. Best regards, Roberto
"I'd love to see something that reduced or eliminated registrations of .Org names by for profit entities as well." Like PIR? On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:47 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Great start on this Roberto! How much of this could be influenced through, for example, PICs? The mere designation of not for profit status doesn't really guarantee any of this, especially the proactive stuff.
I'd love to see something that reduced or eliminated registrations of .Org names by for profit entities as well.
Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
------------------------------ *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, November 23, 2019 5:45:49 PM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Brainstorming
I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed.
I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust. A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now.
This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “*Public Interest*” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over?
I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized.
PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_simi.... PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?
Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.
Best regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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.
The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not. Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck<JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.
For sure. That said, my guess is that even a liberal interpretation of "non-profit" would be far more conservative than the status quo. We could identify the jurisdictions that actually have that distinction and suggest that renewals won't be granted to those who are not recognized in one of those jurisdiction. That new registrations are granted only to those who are. That the secondary market is capped at cost recovery. I mean, there's only so much we can do with a tiny piece of the work of a non-profit but these things might be possible. ________________________________ From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:43 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not. Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.
I am a bit worried about proposals like denying renewal to registrations that do not pass the litmus test of virginity. Even before PIR took over .org there was no strict requirement about being no-profit. Of course, this could be enforced now for new registrations, but to deny renewal would be most unfair. One of the points we raise constantly in connection with the price raise is that registrants are locked in, and will have huge switching costs. The same will apply for a commercial registrant who has registered a domain name with .org maybe because the name he/she wanted was already taken in .com, or maybe for a much simpler reason, that she/he trusted PIR more than Verisign considering the record of good practices. If PIR denies renewal to a person like this, it will instantly lose the reputation earned with years of good behaviour. We might have a “pure” non-commercial domain space, but one that few would trust enough to be willing to be part of it. Cheers, Roberto
On 24.11.2019, at 18:54, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
For sure. That said, my guess is that even a liberal interpretation of "non-profit" would be far more conservative than the status quo. We could identify the jurisdictions that actually have that distinction and suggest that renewals won't be granted to those who are not recognized in one of those jurisdiction. That new registrations are granted only to those who are. That the secondary market is capped at cost recovery. I mean, there's only so much we can do with a tiny piece of the work of a non-profit but these things might be possible. From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:43 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming
The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not. Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Recall that PIR has already agonized over the restrictions that it would put on orgs to get special status when it created .NGO/.ONG ... Some people thought that this is what .org should have always been, but this is what we have now. Asking for .org to have rules more stringent than the status quo is problematic. IMO. Just keeping the current status as PIR being a nonprofit -- even under Ethos -- would be OK for me. WIthout the nonprofit status the pronouncements made are as useless at the Public Interest Commitments tacked onto new gTLD contracts. They are volunteered and can be casually withdrawn at any time. Who's to say that Ethos won't flip PIR to someone else without even the platitudes currently offered? The only thing that would assure the community that PIR would actually *commit* to being mission driven would be to maintain nonprofit status. Now.... to make a point that I've expressed poorly until now. What makes the discussion about this SO difficult is that there are actually multiple different issues: - The rationale for ISOC selling PIR - Selling PIR to a private equity company that turns it from nonprofit to for-profit - The start-to-end process, from "do we sell?" to "we've done a contract", done out of sight of ISOC members and chapters as well as ICANN and three different stakeholder points if view: - ISOC members, chapters and other members of its community - Owners of .org domains - ICANN At-Large and others who care about this transaction and its consequences on public trust in the DNS etc To this end I have taken a stab at an issues matrix which tries to offer the differing perspectives where these issues and stakeholders intersect; it's a Google Doc with access public to anyone with this link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LUBb9OGizKB-vhKY5aLWhxvpE5IEyNRJEoXjZULL...>. Comments are enabled but I'll delete anything unsigned. Please let me know if you find this useful, even as just a strawman that identifies the complexity of the discussion. - Evan
Hi Evan. Good points. Just one note about the non-profit status. There are very tight requirements, scrutinised by the US IRS. Per had it because all profits were either passed on to a non-profit organization like ISOC or used directly for non-profit activities. I doubt that the subscriber to an investment fund would ever accept this approach. For this reason PIR will seek B Corporation certification, that would not make sense for a non-profit. Cheers, R
On 25.11.2019, at 01:35, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Recall that PIR has already agonized over the restrictions that it would put on orgs to get special status when it created .NGO/.ONG ... Some people thought that this is what .org should have always been, but this is what we have now. Asking for .org to have rules more stringent than the status quo is problematic.
IMO. Just keeping the current status as PIR being a nonprofit -- even under Ethos -- would be OK for me. WIthout the nonprofit status the pronouncements made are as useless at the Public Interest Commitments tacked onto new gTLD contracts. They are volunteered and can be casually withdrawn at any time. Who's to say that Ethos won't flip PIR to someone else without even the platitudes currently offered? The only thing that would assure the community that PIR would actually *commit* to being mission driven would be to maintain nonprofit status.
Now.... to make a point that I've expressed poorly until now.
What makes the discussion about this SO difficult is that there are actually multiple different issues: The rationale for ISOC selling PIR Selling PIR to a private equity company that turns it from nonprofit to for-profit The start-to-end process, from "do we sell?" to "we've done a contract", done out of sight of ISOC members and chapters as well as ICANN and three different stakeholder points if view: ISOC members, chapters and other members of its community Owners of .org domains ICANN At-Large and others who care about this transaction and its consequences on public trust in the DNS etc To this end I have taken a stab at an issues matrix which tries to offer the differing perspectives where these issues and stakeholders intersect; it's a Google Doc with access public to anyone with this link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LUBb9OGizKB-vhKY5aLWhxvpE5IEyNRJEoXjZULL...>. Comments are enabled but I'll delete anything unsigned.
Please let me know if you find this useful, even as just a strawman that identifies the complexity of the discussion.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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._______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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 Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 06:01, Roberto Gaetano < mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
Just one note about the non-profit status. There are very tight requirements, scrutinised by the US IRS. Per had it because all profits were either passed on to a non-profit organization like ISOC or used directly for non-profit activities.
The US is not the only country that has non-profit status for corporations, and PIR is not obligated to be an American organization. The change to for-profit mans that, regardless of whatever platitudes, B-corp statuses, advisory groups and promises Ethos can make, at day's end its goal is maximizing profit and/or company value. There's nothing stopping Ethos from breaking all its progressive promises if it doesn't meet its targets, or building up the value of PIR then flipping it to an owner without such community motivations. I doubt that the subscriber to an investment fund would ever accept this
approach.
Probably. But since there was no openness to the search for a buyer, no publicly visible competitive process, we'll never know what options could have been available. For this reason PIR will seek B Corporation certification, that would not
make sense for a non-profit.
Two points here: - Ethos says it's only investigating B-corp status, it hasn't committed. - Some time ago in another life I examined B-corp certification and found it generally pointless. Its most common application is by startups seeking VC from ethical investors. - Evan
It should perhaps be noted that there are those who use .org domain name, but not for a legally registered non-profit organization. For example, someone who sets up a domain for an extended family site. For example, I might (although I haven't) register www.jouris.org. It's definitely not a for-profit endeavor, but nobody would set up an actual non-profit company for the purpose. Just one more little complication that needs to be considered. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.
Good thinking. I just think price is the least important aspect of making this a trusted space for nonprofits. Perhaps capping the aftermarket at cost will serve the same purpose as it would dissuade renewals by commercial entities there solely to resell but leave be those who have built a brand there Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 5:18:21 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming I am a bit worried about proposals like denying renewal to registrations that do not pass the litmus test of virginity. Even before PIR took over .org there was no strict requirement about being no-profit. Of course, this could be enforced now for new registrations, but to deny renewal would be most unfair. One of the points we raise constantly in connection with the price raise is that registrants are locked in, and will have huge switching costs. The same will apply for a commercial registrant who has registered a domain name with .org maybe because the name he/she wanted was already taken in .com, or maybe for a much simpler reason, that she/he trusted PIR more than Verisign considering the record of good practices. If PIR denies renewal to a person like this, it will instantly lose the reputation earned with years of good behaviour. We might have a “pure” non-commercial domain space, but one that few would trust enough to be willing to be part of it. Cheers, Roberto On 24.11.2019, at 18:54, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: For sure. That said, my guess is that even a liberal interpretation of "non-profit" would be far more conservative than the status quo. We could identify the jurisdictions that actually have that distinction and suggest that renewals won't be granted to those who are not recognized in one of those jurisdiction. That new registrations are granted only to those who are. That the secondary market is capped at cost recovery. I mean, there's only so much we can do with a tiny piece of the work of a non-profit but these things might be possible. ________________________________ From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com<mailto:b_jouris@yahoo.com>> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 12:43 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>>; Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com<mailto:mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Brainstorming The challenge would be to come up with an objective, and readily applied, method to determine who qualifies as "for profit" and who does not. Sure there are lots of crystal clear cases; the challenge is sorting out the borderline ones. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (8)
-
Bill Jouris -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jonathan Zuck -
Marita Moll -
Maureen Hilyard -
Nat Cohen -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sebastien Bachollet