Concerns Re: ISOC/PIR/Ethos Sale

[Carlos Vera]

Complex subject with many edges and approaches.  Some chapters of ISOC carry out an initiative to object to the process.  Others seem to agree (or ignore its implications) and others seem not to care.

The Internet community is also divided into opinions between the convenience of the sale, the economic benefit and sustainability for Isoc, and the legitimacy of the sale of an emblematic TLD considering that Isoc is not a business but a non-profit organization  .

For a good majority too, there are some unclear and even unclear points in the process.

With few or no resources that are oriented to the chapters and users effectively, the impact of this process will be more towards the huge bureaucratic structure that Isoc maintains, and whose size-action relationship is by many questioned.

 Cheers

 Carlos Vera
 Isoc Ecuador

> El 27 nov. 2019, a la(s) 10:12, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca> escribió:
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> I would like to expand on Ayden's question about whether there are serious non-financial concerns around the potential ownership of PIR by what amounts to a particular type of venture capital company. 
> 
> Think of three types of venture capital company. Some invest in a portfolio of start up companies, hoping that some succeed and the portfolio is profitable. Some invest in successful "boutique" operations to sell to major corporations (or major corporations buy directly) to improve their product line without doing in-house research and development. The third type looks for undervalued companies, buys them, does things to make them look more attractive (cost cutting, "lipstick on the pig") and usually flips them for a relatively quick profit. 
> 
> My experience as an economist is that firms such as Ethos are of the third type. If the sale goes through that is a hypothesis to be tested. There is nothing about the history of the investors to suggest that they have a long term interest in PIR, .org, or the Internet ecosystem, other than as a source of profits. That means that any declarations that are not carved in legal stone are just "statements of policy for the moment", and all subject to change "as circumstances (including ownership) change". 
> 
> The move to private ownership for PIR and .org exposes .org domain names, and domain name holders, to many more risks, more than just rate increases. Ayden's concern here would exist if the .org registry goes to private ownership, no matter who the owners are, and who they retain for advice. 
> Ayden asks: 
> I think this is an area of divergence where a PIR under ISOC's management may behave differently to a PIR owned by a company whose advisor has strong business interests in China.
> Do others share this same concern as me?
> Sam Lanfranco 
> 
> Postscript: I should declare that at the moment I have a nominal position as a Visiting Professor at  Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool Univ, Suzhou, China. I do not teach courses. My only role is to advise on curriculum around the global Internet ecosystem. I only have travel expenses covered, with accommodations at the university when there (once two years ago). I am not paid for my advice. If you have questions, please ask. 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20191127/b493cf4e/attachment.htm>