[proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Ayden,

Then we disagree on what the core issues are. The core issue to me isn’t who owns PIR, but the welfare of its customers (particularly civil society customers).

You’ve said that the welfare of the .org community is important to you as well, but for some reason I don’t understand, you believe that a change in ownership of PIR means that the interests of its community are harmed. Again, I don’t see that as necessarily being true.

I see potential and opportunity in this sale, and was never convinced that ISOC ever really paid attention to the interests of PIR’s customers. I believe what we should be doing is engaging with both ICANN and PIR on how PIR can better serve the needs of civil society. I have no interest in attempting to stop the sale. Attempting to block the sale serves no constructive purpose.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Dec 4, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>> I’m not aware of any tangible practices by PIR that differentiate it from any other Registry, except perhaps that its profits go to ISOC, instead of going to shareholders.
>
> I think there are differences. For example, the current .ORG wholesale price is 40% below the price allowed by the previous 2013 registry agreement. PIR made the decision, intentionally, not to exploit registrants by increasing prices just because they could.
>
>> Who ultimately owns PIR, and who benefits from its revenue (ISOC, Ethos, or anybody else) is not as much of an issue to me.
>
> This is actually a core issue for me and at the heart of my opposition to this sale. The value of .ORG is derived from the non-profits and civil society actors using it. It is a community asset that belongs to us and not private business. Community assets, and the rent flowing from them, should not be diverted from serving public interest causes to instead filling the bank accounts of billionaires. I see this as no different to, say, a government authority privatizing a monopoly like the issuing of passports, removing price caps, and leaving all governance decisions around who is eligible for a passport in the hand of a private business. This is a dangerous trajectory.
>
>> The welfare of civil society actors with .org domain name registrations is more important, imo.
>
> I agree this is important, and this is why I want the sale stopped. Because important decisions around .ORGs should be made with the interests of that community in mind, and not the financial interests of a private equity firm.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 16:13, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would prefer that NCSG not ask ICANN to withhold approval of the sale of PIR. I’m not entirely convinced that it can using 7.5, since effectively, there is no reassignment of control of the gTLDs under PIR’s management. However, this is just a technicality, really. The change that PIR will undergo (specifically, being transformed from a NFP to a For-Profit corp.) is basically as significant as a complete change of control.
>>
>> My problem with this letter is that it doesn’t really do anything for .org registrants, wether they are non-commercial registrants or not (and there are apparently far more “other” registrants who are not non-commercial in the .org space).
>>
>> I’m not aware of any tangible practices by PIR that differentiate it from any other Registry, except perhaps that its profits go to ISOC, instead of going to shareholders. If this change in ownership and NFP status can be leveraged to achieve greater protections for civil society interests, which I believe was meant to be part of PIR’s original mandate when it was assigned management of .org, then this is something I believe is worth pursuing. Who ultimately owns PIR, and who benefits from its revenue (ISOC, Ethos, or anybody else) is not as much of an issue to me. The welfare of civil society actors with .org domain name registrations is more important, imo.
>>
>> If there was ever a time when PIR would be willing to listen to its customer base on how to better serve them, I assume that time is now. It strikes me as irresponsible to not even try. ICANN withholding approval of the change of ownership is pretty much a nuclear option, and I see no added value to anyone, if that measure is resorted to. Not to ISOC, not to PIR and definitely not to PIR’s customers.
>>
>> If anybody is interested in pursuing additional rights for .org registrants, Milton made some interesting suggestions on what those might include here: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/. It isn’t an exhaustive list, but something to begin working with imo.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter outlining some concerns about the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital. [It is in a Google Doc here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNSxNtZ7k-TtvQkpVXhlSABxi0JYVzDNHU7zZCQtiPU/edit?usp=sharing) In a nutshell, I am calling for ICANN to exercise its right in article 7.5 of the .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG Registry Agreements to withhold its approval for ISOC to assign its rights and obligations to Ethos Capital. I hope that the NCSG might consider sending it. Feel free to make/propose edits directly into the document. If the NCSG does not feel comfortable sending it, perhaps interested individuals could sign on instead and we can send it off in our individual capacities? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191204/50fc5bb4/attachment.htm>