Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

[Mueller, Milton L]

Right, Mitch, so we get a replay of ISOC’s promises from 2003. Promises, promises….

When are folks going to grok that we need Registry Agreement modifications, not to replace one phony “public interest” white knight with another?

Besides, if ISOC gets its loot, won’t they also fund IETF, IGF and ISOC chapters?  How is that way better?

This whole coop coup led by old guard ICANN folks is just not the way to go. Whose idea was it in EFF to dredge up Mike Roberts and Esther Dyson?

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[IGP_logo_gold block]



From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Mitch Stoltz
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:19 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

The alternative registry operator that was just incorporated as a co-op, CCOR.org, has also pledged to use excess revenues to fund IETF, IGF, ISOC chapters, etc., effectively replacing ISOC in that role.


Mitch Stoltz

Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142

https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
On 1/14/20 8:24 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
David,

Life would be simpler here if ISOC wanted to (or were willing to) retain ownership of PIR and the .org registry.

However, it looks liket they have made it clear that they would rather sell it and be free of overseeing those registry management responsibilities. This does not mean that ISOC would be defunding anything, neither itself nor the organizations and activities it supports. The sale proceeds would become a substantial ISOC endowment and generate considerable annual income to carry on its mission and its support.

Sam Lanfranco

---- Original Message ----
From: David Cake <dave at DAVECAKE.NET><mailto:dave at DAVECAKE.NET>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

I do not see any reason why the .org registry cannot remain with ISOC? What is the reasoning that makes it clear to you?
Rather, it seems to me that ISOC is an important component of the Internet, and defunding it (and thus defunding organisations it substantially funds, such as IETF) would be a significant issue for the global internet - if having a track record of operating an important component of the global internet means we need to be conservative with PIR, then surely IETF (and IAB, IRTF, etc) are far more important components of the global internet and to destabilise the is unwise?


David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200120/6dc49f4c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17628 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200120/6dc49f4c/attachment.png>