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

Sun Dec 8 06:59:13 EET 2019

Can we stick to the facts at least, not “three billionaires”, three large diversified private equity firms.

---
James Gannon

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
Reply to: Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
Date: Sunday, 8 December 2019 at 01:20
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

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.

True, but just like the original electrical grids were not public utilities but privately owned, times change. .ORG has been operated by a non-profit for 17 years now. It would be a tragically regressive development for this public good to now shift away from the hands of a non-profit and into the hands of three billionaires.

 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.

I agree. The sale would still be problematic, but given what we have been presented with, it's really quite terrible. Private investment equity firms do not generate value; they extract value, and given this firm is a two-person shell company, we have no track record with which to assess their past promises/commitments and whether they have honoured them. I think then that it is only fair to assess them on what we do know, which is that none of their principals or investors have previously been impact investors. Investors look for funds aligned with their goals, and what we have in front of us are the names of three investors with reputations for valuing large, sustained returns from their investments.

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.

I think your predication has proven, unfortunately, to be true.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, December 8, 2019 12:09 AM, Michael Casadevall <michael at CASADEVALL.PRO> wrote:

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<http://soylentnews.org>)

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Mitch Stoltz <mitch at EFF.ORG<mailto:mitch at EFF.ORG>>
Reply to: Mitch Stoltz <mitch at EFF.ORG<mailto:mitch at EFF.ORG>>
Date: Saturday, 7 December 2019 at 00:11
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
Skype: nick.shorey
Twitter: @nickshorey
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin<http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
Web: www.nickshorey.com<http://www.nickshorey.com>

On 4 Dec 2019, at 15:32, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA<mailto:aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA>> wrote:

Hi,

On Dec 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM<mailto: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/20191208/74489a33/attachment.htm>