Vint Cerf's Comments on the ISOC sale of PIR and the .org registry

[Sam Lanfranco]

Winston, Thanks for posting this. 
 Vint’s comments about the Ethos Capital purchase of PIR and the .org
registry raise several questions. This posting it to explore those
questions.  

	Vint has said: "Over the past several weeks, I have watched with
disappointment the controversy surrounding Ethos Capital’s proposed
acquisition of the Public Interest Registry – which runs the .org domain
– from the Internet Society. I am in favor of this acquisition and would
like to explain why." 

	Vint argues that the ISOC sale to Ethos Capital is a win-win. It certainly
is for ISOC since ISOC ends up with a substantial endowment to do what it
wishes to do, and no obligations to, or complications around, the .org
registry.  

	Vent argues that "PIR becomes a for-profit operation and its investors can
establish a policy of investing profits back into the company in addition
to distributing earnings to shareholders."  The new .org registry owners
are certainly looking for a win, but what is totally unclear is where is
the win (or protection) for the public interest? 

	 About Ethos Capital’s intentions Vint basically says "Trust them" since
it is in their market interests to behave well in their business strategy.
Some of us have observed that the S1B+ purchase price looks to be a
multiple of what PIR’s current revenues would suggest. This poses the
question: What business model is this price based on?  

	Vint comments on Ethos Capital’s propose Stewardship Council. Given that
PIR kept its own advisory council in the dark about the proposed sale, we
are again asked to "Trust them". That leaves the stakeholder community,
ISOC org, and the ISOC board with a challenge, one that should apply no
matter who buys PIR and takes control of the .org registry.  

	What exactly is the form of the ownership being proposed? Is it a benefit
corporation, an LLC with a B Labs Certification? What is it? Is there a way
for ICANN to insist on a form of ownership where public interest
responsibilities are built in and not based on trusting a new entity
created for the sole purpose of buying PIR and the .org registry? It would
be useful if both Ethos Capital and ICANN (both ICANN org and the Board)
entered the discussion. We are supposed to be in favor of multistakeholder
processes. Lastly, and this is a call to lawyers, is there any way to word
the .org registry contract to address some of these concerns.  

	Lastly, Vint states that ISOC "did not seek this transaction". We need
some clarity here. Some have suggested that ISOC’s desire to sell PIR
developed over time. There are other statements saying that ISOC had
multiple purchase offers. There are new interested buyers on the horizon.
ISOC knows the history here. It would help if ISOC laid out the history and
the timelines so that all parties have the facts.   

	Sam Lanfranco  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200115/53b91757/attachment.htm>