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

[Olivier Kouami]

+1 @Sam Lanfranco.
Great points !

In my humble opinion, the bottom-up process was not used in this so
important deal.
We are talking about a Public Interest Registry PIR, but this public was
not informed before thé deal? It's still remain weird for me.
My 2 ecos, cheers
Olévié


Le mer. 15 janv. 2020 à 18:47, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> a écrit :

> 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 $1B+ 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/20200116/9dbcd4af/attachment.htm>