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

Sat Dec 7 18:09:22 EET 2019

In general, I agree that the NCSG must formalize the concerns and submit it
to the board if nothing else to get a response. Full disclosure, I'm the
owner of an active B-Corporation with a .org domain (soylentnews.org)

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> This is not a dramatic change in the entire DNS industry. Operationally
> and price-wise, PIR was not much different from any other registry. Only
> difference was its small annual donation to NCUC and its rather toothless
> Advisory Committee.
>

I'm less concerned on the actual operator of the .org domain as what this
represents in the bigger picture. In a timeframe of months, we've seen
price caps removed from the .org domain with community input either
rejected or ignored, followed by the news of the transfer of the .org
domain. To be frank, as long as rules and regulations protected .org, the
actual operater is in effect irrelevant. I would prefer it remain with a
not-for-profit with an organization that has a history of representing NFPs
and similar the best, but at the end of the day the registrar contracts and
polices relating to the .org domain is what actually matters. As the letter
notes, Verisign originally operated .org and under that period, it still
fulfilled its role as a home for not for profits and other organizations
due to the contracts and rules attached to .org.

>
>
> As I’ve said numerous times before, what we need out of this controversy
> is better protection for .Org registrants: longer term registrations, no
> URS, content neutrality. We are not going to get that if we keep
> misdirecting civil society’s efforts towards “stopping the sale,” based on
> the pretense we can turn the clock back to 2018 and pretend this never
> happened. And in case you hadn’t noticed, the status quo ante was not that
> great, anyway.
>

More or less agreed. The problem is the larger context of what's happening,
not that the sale is happening. If ISOC divested .org without the lifting
of the price caps, I suspect in general the news would be a little more
than a footnote.

>
>
> By the same token it would be a travesty if NCSG were unable to get its
> act together to submit a unified letter to ICANN’s CEO and board regarding
> what we want them to do. So it looks like I will have to develop an
> alternative draft and I hope our leadership in the PC can pull things
> together in time.
>

Can you outline what you intend to put in this letter vs. the existing one
purposed Ayden. While I fully agree that we need to send a unified letter
to the CEO/board, I'm concerned that an entirely new letter will simply
serve to split the community.

>
>
> Watch for it.
>

> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Ayden
> Férdeline
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:56 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the
> Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital
>
>
>
> It’s seems to me that this is not only a company sales! It’s a dramatic
> change in the domain names area and in the field of registrars where Icann
> has a lot to say
>
>
>
> I agree, Carlos. Thanks for weighing in.
>
>
>
> I worry that the sale of PIR to a private entity investment firm will
> significantly alter the Domain Name System for the worse. We were lucky to
> have PIR as a non-commercial registry operator serving as a counterbalance
> against purely commercial ones. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the
> benefit of registrants and non-commercial users of the DNS, whereas other
> top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial
> objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap,
> they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human
> rights implications as EFF has outlined
> <http://eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-%E2%80%A6>.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
>
>
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 3:17 PM, Carlos Vera <cveraq at GMAIL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> It’s seems to me that this is not only a company sales! It’s a dramatic
> change in the domain names area and in the field of registrars where Icann
> has a lot to say
>
>
>
> Carlos Vera
>
> isoc Ecuador
>
>
>
> El 6 dic. 2019, a la(s) 20:58, James Gannon <lists at icann.guru> escribió:
>
> 
>
> ICANN has absolutely no role in stopping the sale, if EFF and other orgs
> are serious about this then they should be taking actions in the PA courts
> system.
>
> NCSG has spent years telling ICANN to stop overreaching and stick to its
> limited mandate, now is not the time to throw all of that work in the bin,
> ICANN does not regulate the sale of companies, we all should know this if
> we are participating in ICANN policy processes. Those who wish to intervene
> in this should do, but at least put time and effort in the right fora.
>
>
>
> ---
>
> *James Gannon*
>
>
>
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Mitch
> Stoltz <mitch at EFF.ORG>
> *Reply to: *Mitch Stoltz <mitch at EFF.ORG>
> *Date: *Saturday, 7 December 2019 at 00:11
> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> *Subject: *Re: [proposed letter] NCSG Concerns About the Sale of the
> Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital
>
>
>
>
>
> I support submitting the letter drafted by Ayden. Amr proposed, in the
> alternative, "engaging with both ICANN and PIR on how PIR can better serve
> the needs of civil society." While I support such engagement, it gives us
> no leverage to effect change.
>
>
>
> On the NTEN call yesterday, Andrew Sullivan and Erik Brooks said that they
> intend to conclude the sale as quickly as possible, but no later than the
> first quarter of 2020. Once the sale is finalized, we will have little to
> no influence over the operation of .ORG. The only formal constraint on that
> operation is the Registry Agreement between PIR and ICANN. And earlier this
> year, when that agreement was renewed, it was altered to make it less
> protective of registrants in several ways. ICANN staff dismissed thousands
> of comments that were nearly unanimous in opposing the new contractual
> terms. There was no multistakeholder input.
>
>
>
> This means that if we don't stop or at least delay the sale, we can
> "engage" with the newly for-profit PIR all we want, but they will have
> little incentive to make any changes.
>
>
>
> There is plenty that an unrestrained PIR can do to hurt the interests of
> noncommercial registrants. The reason there hasn't been much harm yet is
> because of ISOC's influence, or at least ISOC's concern for its reputation.
> A mysterious private equity firm that didn't exist eight months ago will
> have no such compunctions. * And we will have no real influence.* That's
> why we need to call on ICANN to halt the sale. How can we fail to respond
> *now*, when it might mean something?
>
>
>
>
>
> Mitch Stoltz
>
> Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
>
> https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
>
> On 12/4/19 7:43 AM, Nick Shorey wrote:
>
> Hi Ayden,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the responses. I agree it is possible it could be seen as an
> indirect change, though I read it more as a situation where PIR were to
> outsource registry backend operations for example.
>
>
>
> Re open tender - I’d personally prefer PIR remained as it were. An open
> tender process risks the potential for an even less appropriate operator
> winning the bid.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Shorey
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <lists at nickshorey.com>
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4 Dec 2019, at 15:32, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
> This letter is not about halting the sale; it is about preventing the
> transfer of the Registry Agreements for .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG to Ethos
> Capital. The decision to sell PIR's assets is indeed a matter for ISOC to
> decide. If this is not clear please feel free to edit the letter to make
> this distinction more evident. Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nobody (to my knowledge) has suggested that a transfer of the Registry
> Agreements to Ethos will take place. This would make Ethos the Contracted
> Party, but by all accounts I’ve seen, they will still remain with PIR.
>
>
>
> But yes…, I do agree that this might qualify as an indirect change of
> control.
>
>
>
> The way that the letter is currently worded suggests that the NCSG will
> ask the ICANN Board to terminate PIR’s Registry Agreements, and transfer
> them to another entity.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191207/68436200/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18727 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191207/68436200/attachment.png>