STATEMENTNAME
<p>ISOC Sells PIR</p>
STATEMENTSTATUS
<p><ac:structured-macro ac:name="status" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="ad495780-aa59-4bab-a4d5-235c2634283b"><ac:parameter ac:name="colour">Blue</ac:parameter><ac:parameter ac:name="title">COMMENT</ac:parameter></ac:structured-macro></p>
STATEMENTASSIGNEE
<p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa0802249f42f260149f4308c040497" /></ac:link></p><p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa0802249f42f260149f4308adb0311" /></ac:link></p><p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa0802249f42f260149f4308bac0428" /></ac:link></p><p><ac:link><ri:user ri:userkey="8aa08022528a79940154153a73ed008a" /></ac:link></p>
STAFFCONTACT
STATEMENTNUMBER
PUBLICCOMMENTINFO
<h3><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tgfRNYLpEqe93D2p-T1d2N5REl3Bj1coLf8kqqMTBOQ/edit?usp=sharing">See Google Doc for ALAC Advice on ISOC/PIR Issue</a> (Dec 2019)</h3><p>At-Large workspace created on the topic of ISOC selling PIR to Ethos Capital, after active discussion on the CPWG mailing list.</p><p><strong>Related Resources</strong></p><p><strong><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/GwBhBw">Action Items from Single Issue Call on 03 December 2019</a></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #212121;"><a href="https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/12/11/icann-told-to-make-ethos-capital-conform-to-original-org-rfp-criteria/">NCSG letter on the Internet Governance Project (.org) site 11 December 2019</a></span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #212121;">NCSG requests: "<em style="text-align: start;">A revised notification procedure in which wholesale price increases of any amount give ORG registrants 6 months to renew their domains for periods of up to 20 years at the pre-existing annual rate. Implementation of this revised notification procedure must be obligatory to both PIR as well as any registrar through which .org domain names are registered and/or renewed." </em></span></p><p><span style="color: #212121;"><em style="text-align: start;">Justine Chew, APRALO ALAC Member noted: "reminiscent of what was suggested as the third position in the ALAC Statement of May 2019 on the .org RA renewal."</em></span></p><p><strong><a href="https://www.kickstartcommerce.com/about-that-10-year-renewal-strategy-for-com-domains.html">Move to increase .COM prices 03 January 2020</a></strong></p><p><strong><a href="https://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-statement-on-icanns-announced-changes-to-the-com-registry-agreement/">ICA Statement on ICANN's announced changes to the .COM registry agreement 03 January 2020</a></strong></p><p><strong>Roberto Gaetano comments on the CPWG mailing list 05 January 2020:</strong></p><p style="text-align: start;"><em>My second comment is that we may be focusing too much to financial aspects and financial strategy, and take the risk of missing the point of what really was (or maybe still could be) .org. Incidentally, even from a financial point of view I have serious issues with the black or white alternatives suggested by the author.</em><br /><em>My third, and to my personal opinion more important comment, is that we need to find out a way where we can influence the future behaviour of Public Interest Registry rather than fight the transfer of ownership.</em><br /><em>I have already provided some comments of mine on this list, but it is maybe time to come with more focused suggestions, based on these guidelines:</em></p><ul><li><em><strong><u>to ICANN</u></strong>, was the redelegation of .org to a non-profit a historic move that changed the marketplace and one of the great successes of ICANN (I would even go as far as saying “one of the reasons for ICANN to exist”)? If so, notwithstanding the obvious difficulties - including the risk of a gigantic lawsuit - is there room for ensuring, if not the form of non-profit, at least the commitment to an ethical behaviour built in the ICANN-PIR/Ethos contract?</em></li><li><em><strong><u>to PIR/Ethos</u></strong>, what are the ways in which the non-profit (I would say the at-large user community) can influence the decisions about .org (but also .ngo/.ong and the .og IDNs) and the future decisions about presence in the domain name market? PIR had an Advisory Council - how can that evolve? PIR Board members were selected by a reputed non-profit like ISOC - how is the presence of the voice of the users guaranteed on the PIR Board? The latter issue is quite urgent, terms for 2 PIR Board members come to an end in few months.</em></li><li><em><strong><u>to ISOC</u></strong> - but I believe that this should be a matter for ISOC Chapters rather than for the whole community - how does its presence in matters related to domain name policy change after the transfer of PIR? Assuming that the money that will come from the PIR sale will be invested, who has any influence in ensuring that the investment are done in the best interest of the Internet community?</em></li></ul><p><em>My worry is that we lose momentum in initiatives that are not focused enough. While now we can put pressures, in a few months we will be irrelevant.</em></p><p><br /></p>
FINALVERSION
FINALDRAFT
FIRSTDRAFT
<p><span style="color: #3366ff;"><em>24 November 2019 - CPWG mailing list, Roberto Gaetano:</em></span></p><p><span style="color: #212121;">I was thinking of starting jotting down some ideas about what are the things that we should consider about the transfer of control of .org - other than the fear about the price raise that we have already abundantly discussed.</span></p><p style="text-align: start;">I believe that it is essentially a matter of trust.<br />A year ago, day more, day less, ISOC had issue a call for candidatures for PIR Board members - myself and two other Directors were ending our term in 2019 and needed to be replaced. The selection process was supervised by ISOC Board of Trustees - or a committee thereof. That was guaranteeing alignment of the PIR Board with ISOC values. Who will select the two PIR Directors that will replace the ones ending their terms? What will be the requested profile? When ISOC was selecting, the requested profiles were public, as the call for candidatures. If the process is meant to follow a similar path it should be starting now.</p><p style="text-align: start;">This is important for two reasons: first because of the transparency of the selection of Directors who will supervise the “<strong class="">Public Interest</strong>” Registry - but also because the process was run by an organization that was trusted by the community. Anybody here trusting the investment fund that is taking over?</p><p style="text-align: start;">I remember that when I was chairing the PIR Board we had regular meetings with ISOC’s Board of Trustees. That was ensuring that the technical decisions taken by PIR were aligned with ISOC’s principles. This is now gone. PIR Board will, at the most, meet with the investors to make sure that the profits are maximized.</p><p style="text-align: start;">PIR has taken over the years positions against some of the unethical or dangerous practices that had as sole purpose to squeeze more money from the market without looking at the unintended negative effects, like for instance the wildcard - see as a reference the CircleID article at <a class="" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_pir-5Fopposes-5Fsitefinder-5Fwill-5Fnot-5Fimplement-5Fsimilar-5Fservice-5Ffor-5Forg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=ylA9XJhulblLLz5n6EoEZ-qbKi2zM-hsEoEgVcr5Xus&s=VlbDb-BrtavDn8gmHfZmt3mNGklC6j_WXz4FFrL9a7I&e=">http://www.circleid.com/posts/pir_opposes_sitefinder_will_not_implement_similar_service_for_org [circleid.com]</a>. PIR also curbed the so-called "domain tasting” by charging Registrars who were practicing it. But besides fighting against unethical practices, PIR has also positively supported good practices, like for instance DNSSEC - PIR was the first gTLD to sign the zone, see <a class="" href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.securityweek.com_dnssec-2Dbecomes-2Dreality-2Dtoday-2Dicann-2Dbrussels&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=ylA9XJhulblLLz5n6EoEZ-qbKi2zM-hsEoEgVcr5Xus&s=pYg7LV8CyS0ofYmXOaDw2UW_uhfLNvUsF95dDt89qN8&e=">https://www.securityweek.com/dnssec-becomes-reality-today-icann-brussels [securityweek.com]</a>. It should be reminded that implementation of DNSSEC was not bringing additional income, just additional work. I have been in the Board of PIR for 6 years, 2+ of them as Chair, and I acknowledge that I might be biased, but those above are facts, not opinions. Will PIR under the new regime be allowed to take the same stance in defence of “doing the right thing” according to its ethics, or will it be forced to “do the thing that brings a better return on investment”? You can guess my answer, but what is yours?</p><p style="text-align: start;">Let me stress it again, it is not about the fees, it is about having or not a champion that will stand up for “doing the right thing” in a market that is dominated by greed. Without a .org run in the public interest, even with sometimes some mistakes, but always with good intentions and with the ability to change decisions when the Internet users told us we were wrong (remember the SCADR issue?), the Internet will be a different place. And this is what is, IMHO, the real problem.</p><p style="text-align: start;"><br /></p>