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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Mitch,

Please see some responses in-line, and apologies in advance for the lengthy response.

> On Dec 7, 2019, at 2:11 AM, Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

What leverage do you believe the letter drafted by Ayden gives us, which my proposed approach relinquishes? In the interest of moving this discussion forward towards a concrete strategy, please be specific, because right now, I really don’t get it.

> 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.

Again…, where does this influence you refer to come from? If you’re referring to pressure by the media or petitions with thousands of signatories, I suggest you rethink how much influence that actually gives us based on previous experience. If that isn’t our source of influence, please explain what is.

> 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.

This I do agree with, and note that this happened while PIR still remained a NFP owned by ISOC, so maybe we can use this as an example to do-away with any fantasies that PIR was/is somehow more sensitive to the interests of civil society due to its current status and owner than any other Registry Operator out there? I mean, c’mon…, the alterations you refer to were VOLUNTARILY adopted by PIR under ISOC’s watch, and not forced upon it in any way.

> 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.

You might be right on this, but I doubt it. I believe that both Ethos and PIR have a great deal of incentive to engage with us (and other stakeholders) in order to make PIR more successful than it already had been. They need PIR to become as successful as possible in order to regain a return on the investment made, and a big part of this is retaining as many of PIR’s customers as possible, as well as seeking new ones.

Also, during the NTEN call you referred to, both Ethos and PIR said in no uncertain terms that they would very much like to engage with the .org community on how to better serve its needs. I was happy to hear this, and would like to take advantage of that offer.

> 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.

I’m sorry, Mitch, but I really don’t understand why you’re making this claim? Unless you know something I don’t, I’m not aware of ISOC ever intervening in how PIR had been run on behalf of the interests of non-commercial registrants, and I certainly have no memory over the past 10-years of ISOC participating (positively or negatively) in policy development that might impact the obligations imposed on PIR.

What I do know is that PIR, while owned by ISOC, voluntarily adopted the use of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) in its contract with ICANN. This isn’t just harmful to the interests of non-commercial registrants, but a breach of trust and process by both PIR and ICANN. The URS shouldn’t be allowed to be included in the .org Registry Agreement, as you yourself have pointed out in the past.

Furthermore, PIR, while owned by ISOC, voluntarily switched from being a “thin” registry to a “thick” one before there was ever a “thick” whois Consensus Policy at ICANN. In fact, PIR was the poster-child of the trademark interests represented on the “thick” whois PDP regarding how the transition from “thin” to “thick” can successfully take place. This, like adoption of the URS, was a breach in process, and done with complete disregard for the privacy and data protection rights of PIR’s customers, including non-commercial registrants.

I’m not sure how to reconcile these facts with your statement above. I have no problem with seeing ISOC walk away from PIR. We should have expected more from them in the past, but no…, they were not (as you suggest) a positive influence on PIR at all.

> 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?

Same response and questions as above.

I hope my thoughts are getting across to you, and please don’t mistake my position on this to be something that it isn’t. I’m not at all looking to give away any influence or leverage that we might now have.

I just honestly believe that we, as the NCSG, are better informed on the technical and policy nuances of what is involved here, and that we should be attempting to lead civil society engagement on this issue, not follow. To do this, we need to consider the bottom-line of what is in the best interests of non-commercial customers of PIR, and not join an ongoing campaign, which to me seems more interested in playing advocate than actually being ad advocate.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191208/a9d6cd9d/attachment.htm>