[Editor’s note: The following is a guest editorial from Nat Cohen, who provides interesting details about the birth of Public Interest Registry and its role with Internet Society. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of the conclusions, I think it’s a good contribution to current discussions about the sale of Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital.]
The Internet Society (“ISOC”) generates tens of millions of dollars for itself each year through its control of the .org registry, Public Interest Registry (“PIR”), which makes money each time a .org domain name is registered or renewed. Running .org has become so lucrative that PIR is now a target for acquisition by private equity firm Ethos Capital. Much of ISOC’s revenue comes from nonprofit organizations[1] which predominantly use .org domain names.[2] As a consequence, funds needed by those nonprofit organizations to pursue their own worthwhile missions are transferred to ISOC. This raises the question as to whether ISOC’s control over .org serves the public benefit.
The way the nonprofit funding model usually works is that the nonprofit does good work and raises funds from contributors who voluntarily wish to support the mission of the nonprofit. A nonprofit, such as Doctors Without Borders, must demonstrate that it is a good steward of donated funds in order to be able to attract continued contributions.
In contrast, ISOC uses its modest financial support of the Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”), where most of the actual work is carried out by “thousands of volunteers from around the world”,[3] to justify fat compensation packages for its own executives, while imposing a $70 million upcharge on its base of .org registrants, and enjoying control of a public resource valued at over a billion dollars. The funds it extracts are not contributed voluntarily but come from compelled payments from those wishing to use .org domain names.[4] It spends vast sums of money without needing to justify that the money is being put to a worthwhile or efficient purpose and with no accountability to discipline its spending.
ISOC’s Purpose and its Profligate Spending
ISOC’s primary mission is to support the modest funding needs of the IETF.[5] The IETF is an Internet standards body made up of thousands of people volunteering their time and effort[6] to accomplish the IETF’s goal of “making the Internet work better.”[7] The IETF conducts three meetings per year, runs mailing lists and publishes Internet standards documents. ISOC contributed $3 million to the IETF in 2018,[8] yet most of that was merely passing along outside contributions earmarked[9] for the IETF.[10]
ISOC raised more than $70 million in 2018 from its control over the .org registry. ISOC paid $18 million to Afilias[11] to do the work of actually operating the registry, paid $2.65 million in fees to ICANN, and yet charged .org registrants $93 million for the right to register or renew their .org domain names.
Where did the bulk of the $70 million go?
- Nearly $7 million went to pay PIR staff and executives. PIR contracts with Afilias to do the actual work of running the .org registry; PIR handles marketing and registrar relations and it lobbies ICANN to look after ISOC’s interests. PIR has ten key employees, including top executives, each compensated in excess of $200,000 per year. The combined compensation for the CEO position[12] exceeded $770,000 in 2018.[13] In contrast, Doctors Without Borders, whose size and scope of operations dwarfs that of PIR, paid its executive director less than $300,000 in 2018.[14]
- ISOC pursues several vaguely defined initiatives:[15] [16] global engagement, such as removing impediments to Internet growth in developing countries ($9 million), communicating about what it does ($4 million), providing briefings on policy issues ($4 million),[17] reaching out to new stakeholders ($2 million), and elevating “identity” to a core issue and educating end-users to the importance of Internet security ($3 million).[18]
- $17 million in compensation[19] was paid to a staff of over 100 people in 2018.[20]
- $7 million was spent on travel and attending conferences.[21] [22]
The Controversial Award of .org to ISOC
How did we get into this situation? ISOC leveraged its role in partially funding the IETF to gain control of .org with the help of its connections at ICANN.
In the early 2000s, ISOC faced “a looming financial crisis”[23] – it needed funds for itself. Meanwhile, ICANN needed a new manager for .org. ICANN put .org up for bid in 2002.[24] ISOC was one of eleven bidders. ISOC did not fare that well in the initial evaluation process. ISOC received poor marks from the bid evaluators on the “good works” criterion, with its support for the IETF being its only saving grace:
“the Committee notes that although it has made no commitment to support ‘good works,’ profits from the registry will go to ISOC. On the arguable proposition that support for IAB/IETF standards processes constitutes ‘good works’ we awarded ISOC a ‘Low’ ranking in this category rather than a ‘None.’”[25]
The bid evaluators noted that ISOC’s public support came primarily from ISOC itself:
“The Internet Society demonstrated support for its proposal by mobilizing its own membership and chapters. With one late exception, the British Computer Society, it does not seem to have sought or received organizational endorsements from outside of ISOC.”[26]
Another bidder, Unity, ranked far higher in the evaluation performed by the nonprofit constituency than did ISOC’s bid, and received far broader support from the nonprofit community.[27]
ISOC, however, had influence at ICANN. Many of the founders and early leadership of ICANN had ties to ISOC. At the time the .org bid process was run, the ICANN Board included Vint Cerf, the former head of ISOC, as the Chair and another ISOC member as the Vice Chair.[28] In addition, eight more ISOC members sat on the Board.[29] The ICANN Board awarded .org to ISOC.[30] [31]
Commenters at the time decried the outcome as an “insider deal”.[32] They recognized that ISOC was proposing a parasitic arrangement in which ISOC would bleed .org registrants to feed itself: the “ISOC proposal nakedly says it will take money from .org registrants to support ISOC”.[33] ISOC’s relationship to .org was essentially rent extraction. As Bret Fausett noted at the time in his ICANNWatch blog, “the idea that funds from .org registrants will be skimmed to support ISOC programs is not only bad policy but contrary to what the Board has previously expressed.”[34]
The Lull Before the Storm
ISOC’s early years in control of the .org registry imposed a fairly modest burden on .org registrants. The price of .org domain names was fixed at $6.00 for the term of the 2003 agreement,[35] which retained the existing pricing. In 2004, ISOC generated around $5 million in disposable funds,[36] from which ISOC contributed $1.25 million to the IETF, such that 25% of the funds at ISOC’s disposal reached the IETF.
As is often the case when ICANN renews registry agreements,[37] the terms that ICANN and ISOC negotiated in the 2006 renewal of the .org agreement resulted in more money for ICANN, more money for the registry, and an increased financial burden imposed on registrants without their meaningful participation in the decision and without any increase in benefit to them. The 2006 .org agreement renewal introduced a fee surcharge for ICANN, and gave ISOC the ability to increase .org prices by an aggressive 10% per year.[38] No safeguards were included in the agreement to ensure that the amount of money extracted from .org registrants corresponded to the funding needs of the IETF, nor did it couple prices to operational expenses, nor did ISOC need to provide any justification for raising .org prices. The first 10% price increase took effect on November 9, 2008, when ISOC increased the price of .org domain names to $6.75 (including a $0.15 ICANN fee). Prices stayed at this level for around two and a half years, until April 1, 2011, when ISOC raised the .org prices to $7.21.[39]
Things changed after 2011. ISOC developed an appetite for extracting substantially more revenue from its control of .org. ISOC raised .org prices in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016, when it reached the current level of $9.93 per year. A combination of growth in .org registrations, sharply lower fees negotiated with Afilias for running the registry, and the leap in .org prices produced an ever-rising river of funds to ISOC.
By 2018, ISOC’s surcharge had grown to $75 million, a fifteen-fold increase over the $5 million level in 2004, while ISOC’s contribution to the IETF had somewhat more than doubled, to $3 million. ISOC pocketed 25 times the amount it needed to fund the IETF and passed along around 4% to the IETF of what it took from .org registrants.
A Broken Funding Model
Awarding ISOC control of the .org registry as a means to raise funds for the IETF may have been done with good intentions, but after 18 years it is a funding model run amok. A structure intended to deliver a few million dollars per year in funding to the IETF is now pulling in more than $70 million per year in excess funds. The money flowing to PIR will grow rapidly even if annual price increases are limited to 10% per year.[40] Ethos Capital has placed a (low end)[41] valuation of $1.135 billion on future cash flows from PIR.[42] This valuation is a measure of the harm that ICANN is causing .org registrants as a consequence of the ISOC/PIR funding structure. The good done in ensuring that a volunteer-run organization covers a small budget shortfall,[43] is dwarfed by the tens of millions of dollars of financial burden placed each year on .org registrants to accomplish this modest goal.
ISOC’s ability to overcharge .org registrants, through its control over PIR, is now dangerously unconstrained as a result of its perpetual control of the registry and the recent lifting of price caps. It is this power to exploit .org registrants that has attracted Ethos Capital. That a private equity firm finds operating a name space intended for nonprofits to be a compelling investment opportunity demonstrates that the resource is being grossly mismanaged.
While ISOC’s stated mission is to promote the Internet “for the benefit of all people throughout the world”,[44] much of the $70 million extracted by ISOC is skimmed from the charitable contributions intended for nonprofits working to address pressing global social needs – hunger, disease, climate change, homelessness, intolerance, the refugee crisis, among countless other worthwhile missions, as well as from the tithes and other donations made to religious institutions and local houses of worship.
ICANN should recall its own mission[45] and purpose and restructure how .org is managed
ICANN has a duty to act in the public interest. Blocking the sale of PIR to Ethos Capital,[46] while necessary, is insufficient. Ethos Capital’s interest in PIR is due to the underlying defects[47] in the .org registry agreement negotiated by ICANN. ICANN took a stable, growing namespace and destabilized it by removing protections from registrants and making them vulnerable to financial exploitation by the registry. Rejecting Ethos Capital’s purchase offer, without taking further steps, would merely perpetuate the current broken system in which ISOC extracts enormous sums from .org registrants and dissipates those funds to enrich its own executives with no public benefit commensurate to the resources consumed.
It is time to put an end to the financial exploitation of .org registrants. If at all possible, it is time to end the PIR/ISOC funding model which has long outlived its usefulness. Now is the time for ICANN to rethink the operation of .org so that, at long last, it represents and supports the nonprofit community rather than being parasitic upon it.
I’d like to express my gratitude to those who reviewed and provided feedback on this article.
[2] In the United States, at least, the majority of 501(c)(3) websites are on .org domain names. See also.
[5] “In contemplation of the need for a mechanism for aggregating funding from many sources, it was proposed to form an Internet Society and to use its resources, in part, to provide funds in support of IETF.” See here.
[6] ISOC reports the involvement of 4,096 volunteers on its 2018 990, see pdf.
[9] See, for instance, “Mirjam Kuehne (RIPE NCC) said the RIRs contribute membership money into ISOC specifically earmarked to support IETF and wondered what will happen with that.”
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-71-ripe-ncc-services-working-group-minutes)
[10] ISOC’s $3 million grant to the IETF was nearly offset by $2.6 million in outside contributions and grants received by ISOC, over and above the funds received through PIR, as reported on ISOC’s 2018 990, Part VIII, 1f. These additional contributions are nearly sufficient to cover ISOC’s grant to IETF, even in the absence of any funds received as a result of PIR’s control of .org. See pdf.
[12] PIR transitioned to a new CEO in 2018, with a Director serving as interim CEO for several months. The $770k figure represents the total salary and benefits provided to the former CEO and interim CEO in 2018.
[15] “ISOC has a reputation for being a bit of a hammer looking around for nails.” at https://medium.com/savedotorg/well-that-was-a-surprise-1d8d8d3d3dfa.
[16] Figures reported net out grants reportedly given to other organizations, so that expenses shown better reflect expenses incurred by ISOC itself.
[18] See here: The “stakeholder” and “identity” initiatives were broken out in the 2017 990 but are lumped together in a $14.6 million program in the 2018 990 (Part III, 4b) that also includes support for the IETF. The 2017 figures are used here.
[22] See also Ayden Féderline’s detailed review of ISOC’s spending in this Twitter thread.
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibid
[29] “Ten of the ICANN Directors are members of the Internet Society”
[30] Reports at the time accused ICANN staff of reweighting the results, in effect “lying with statistics”, to enable ISOC to come out on top in the ICANN staff evaluation.
[31] ICANN’s General Counsel addressed allegations of conflict of interest in his report on the award. He found no impropriety: “Directors are members of the Internet Society, but none of them would financially benefit in any way, directly or indirectly, from the selection of the Internet Society as the successor .org operator.” He further found that ICANN’s conflict of interest policy “does not prohibit Directors from voting on matters merely because those matters involve a philanthropic society which the Directors may philosophically support”. See here.
[34] Brett Fausett cited here.
[36] ISOC paid Afilias around $4.00 per domain name, generating about $5 million for itself on a growing base of 2 – 3 million .org domain names. Disposable funds refers to the revenues ISOC receives in excess of what is required to pay Afilias for performing the technical functions of operating the .org registry and to pay fees imposed by ICANN for its own support.
[43] Or as little as $400,000, as much of the funding for the IETF comes from outside contributions earmarked for the IETF. See footnote 9 above.
[45] “ICANN’s mission is in part to preserve the operational stability of the Internet. Eliminating price caps and endangering the online credibility of the global nonprofit community is not consistent with ICANN’s mission.”, ASAE comment on the proposed renewal of the .org registry agreement.
[47] “In its attempt to justify this current proposal, ICANN is pushing the misguided rationale that registry operators of legacy gTLDs should effectively be treated as owners entitled to whatever fees they deem appropriate even though they did not create the legacy domain names they currently manage.”, ASAE comment on the proposed renewal of the .org registry agreement. See also: PDF, comment, comment.
I appreciate the detail that is in this blog post, and I appreciate your viewpoints, Nat. Thank you.
I agree with the overarching message you espouse.
I do take issue with your compensation argument. I feel you’re out of touch with the market realities of internet infrastructure salaries. No one is overpaid at ISOC, in my opinion. We want and need qualified, expert folks to staff ISOC and ICANN and other similar not-for-profits. To get and keep the good folks, we have to pay them something that’s at least in the ballpark of competitive. That goes for the top executives as well as the worker bees.
Thanks for the comment. Whether or not your point about compensation levels is correct, it misses the main point which is that $70 million is being spent by a nonprofit that is accountable to no one. And a decent chunk of that money is being siphoned from donations and contributions to nonprofits that are accountable to donors, and are pursuing important work that has societal benefit.
If ISOC is doing good work, then it will attract VOLUNTARY support. Putting it in charge of running a de-facto monopoly to force .org registrants to support its initiatives is bad policy.
The level of funding is untethered to clearly identified needs. Nor is it clear that the funds are being spent wisely or well.
Accountability is missing from ISOC. Voluntary support is missing from ISOC. Matching funding levels to needs is missing from ISOC.
Lots of money is being directed away from worthwhile causes to ISOC – and those who are providing the funds are not doing so because they wish to support ISOC. That’s a problem.
Have to agree that executive compensation comparisons are not helpful for you and really do nothing for your argument, and are a distraction.
As a non-profit, there is no equity compensation portion , so cash compensation is key and if you want to hire smart, capable people you need to pay market rates.
Decent engineers in the Valley are getting paid $350K in total comp, what do you expect the CEO of a near hundred million dollar company to make?
Focus on the nonsense that ISOC spending money on , or that PIR flies its whole team and Board to every ICANN meeting Business Class
If you don’t find that part of the argument compelling, that’s fine. The compensation levels do seem higher than they need to be, especially when compared to surveys showing what other nonprofit executives make. But who is in a position to restrain excessive levels of compensation, since ISOC is not accountable to donors?
Can you share a little more about “the nonsense that ISOC is spending money on”? If there was a great deal of public benefit from the initiatives ISOC is pursuing, then while their funding model would still be problematic, the harm caused by the diversion of funds to ISOC may not be that great. But if ISOC is spending tens of millions of dollars with little to show for it, then that wasteful spending – especially when ISOC is depriving other nonprofits of funds – is harmful.
Do you not believe that this ORG issue is becoming the more written in a legacy of a past that was already created in 1999 and that we never saw or did not want to see the truth of what would happen, until it has reached our noses? and no one can do anything because the power that they have to do and disappear what they let them do, the international governments of each country with Non-Profit Organizations.
All these are like the electoral campaigns of the world, we pay money for a cause that when they govern they do what they think, they never fulfill what they have promised and if they do it it is to favor theirs, business friends, and this is the same a wheel that will always lead to the same route never in which I, you wish, the economic world is made that way and nobody will change it, if the bench of the monopoly of the old desktop game does not jump on the table our house of young people.
The illusion is a game and break what we believed an illusion in which we did not realize at the time, now they have put it through the entire squad of a football goal
Agree with others – compensation argument is weak and in the very least should use same industry comps.
Argument strong regarding several “what do they actually do”
orgs with their hand in the pie not just ISOC.
Time to consolidate perhaps?
The most outstanding falicy of fact,
The original intent was NOT specific to non profit use as you and others claim.
The current and past deliniation of the .org intent is generic and usable for ANY ORGanization.
In UDRP terms, first rights.
No one has a right to show up 20+ years later and claim it to be otherwise ” just because” or ” credibility confusion”
Reverse hijacking- The opposers know or should know .org is not specific to non profit use.
Less than half of the regs are actual non profits.
Minority rule? Uhuh.
Even at the highest possible cost increase over 10 years reg fees would remain a tiny, tiny portion of expense for a nonprofit.
20$ a YEAR. 10 yrs from now. WOW.
Paying for services that INCREASE donations is described as a financial “burden”.
It’s actually a huge “benifit” ++++++donations
they wouldnt otherwise collect.
Siphoning,
“Vunerable to financial exploitation,”
non profits would be better served
by caping phone costs alone.
Internet access free!
Marketing costs free!
transaction fees free!
Now theres a cause or two that would save 1000x more!
Why leave out other “necessary” for profit services that siphon off donations? no support in the real world ?
Any real world examples where donations have declined due to this 10 -20 $ “burden” ?
“endangering online credibility globally”
try that argument at craigslist.org
try it out on the aftermarket exploitation. Ok for some not others?
A common tradition of America is to release developments / inventions to for profit enterprises.
Not to keep selective control like other countries.
The reason – Growth, expansion, investment, open market.
“Misguided rationale” ?
Price cap effects have always been limited to the point where market force does a better job.
“Misguided rationale”?
Monopolies can still be demolished in this country.
Small/local nonprofits will still do good with or without the internet
Humans will continue to be deprived by other humans with or without the internet.
price caps on 1 tld ain’t going to change that.
Deprivation – absurd. 45%+ global population doesnt even have access yet!
Fact- The contract can still be revolked at any time.
Fact- No legal obligation to be managed by a non profit.
Fact- No legal obligation to accept highest bid.
Fact- Ethos wasn’t the only proposal.
Fact- Operational stability has nothing to do with market pricing.
Again, opposers trying to streeetch
the intended definition to further specspit, fear mongering.
Fact- current board member of the newly formed .coop violated CA law by refusing financial transparency while on the ICANN board. Tried to prevent by introducing new policy. lost in court.
What do other members have to gain/loose?
beware dogooders.
I perfer to trust individuals with a very long and credible history associated with the growth and access of the internet on a global scale and appreciate a much longer and in the know view for ALL not just non profits.
I would like to trust the opposers.
For now, the accuracy, cherry picking of claims, the specspit and fear mongering, changing definitions, un-equal comparisons,
outright false information,false implied policy, to further cause,
is equally suspect.
Credibility- just not there yet.
Tooo much “misguided” rationale
Cheers
Let’s see if we share the same understanding of some of the basic facts.
My understanding:
– majority of nonprofits use .org domain names, at least in the US.
– ISOC generated approx. $70 million from its control of .org, without any accountability to use that money wisely.
– that money came from all .org registrants, not only nonprofits, but a large share are nonprofits.
– based on my research, those .org domain names with active websites or where the owner can otherwise be identified are distributed about 32% nonprofit, 32% other noncommercial, 31% commercial, 5% speculative (domainer).
– this means that tens of millions of dollars are pulled from nonprofits each year to go to ISOC
– ISOC justified its bid for .org based on its support of the IETF, yet only 4%, on the high side, of the disposable funds that ISOC obtains as a result of its control of .org actually go to fund the IETF.
– the other 96% are spent on projects of questionable public benefit.
Which of these statements do you disagree with?
Thank you for this eye-opening and thought-provoking analysis of ISOC’s tenure as overseer of dot org/PIR, including the questionable circumstances under which ISOC obtained its position through interconnections (conflicts of interest) with ICANN in 2003, up to the present day when a bloated and seemingly rapacious ISOC extracts tens of millions of dollars a year in inflated reg fees from dot org and dot org registrants mostly to perpetuate ISOC’s own existence.
Thank you. Well put. You should have written the article instead of me!
To clarify one point, ICANN’s counsel found that there was no conflict of interest in the award of .org to ISOC (https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/general-counsels-report-22sep02.htm).
“Ten of the ICANN Directors are members of the Internet Society, but none of them would financially benefit in any way, directly or indirectly, from the selection of the Internet Society as the successor .org operator.”
So no conflicts there. Got it.
Thanks.
Nat thank you for:
-validating only 30% of end users are actual non profits
and primarily USA based which is what opposers use as the main global argument.
access is a global issue not just a tiny minority stake
-ignoring false speckspitting and fear mongering as a basis for an argument that benifits a tiny minority interest by a maximum of 10 bucks over 10 YEARS and claiming that it is a “burden”
-ignoring the actual intent of the tld which opposers conveniently leave out or falsely report, and other facts listed that are intentionally not widely reported
-ignoring aftermarket profiteers
that do cause financial ” burden ”
on the 30% non profits.
Yeah, i get it.
It’s only a one time burden,
money that could have gone to the cause ! or paid reg fees for the next 20 years!
-ignoring the American tradition of hand of to for profit entities for public benifit
or if you agree, then you should at least edit your post to reflect
1. the actual intent for .org tld
in it’s entirety
2. reg fees actually benifit non profits not burden them and contribute to the greater global good.
3. include aftermarket profiteers
as a “burden” on non profits
16 YEARS AGO, ISOC and IETF needed stable funding NOT just IETF to connect the rest of the WORLD.
Does anyone deny the significance of the global need at that time?
deny the progress made on decisions by ” insiders”?
Any scanals result?
Any debate on the continued need going forward as 47% +/- still are not connected? 4.5 BILLION people
That’s my understanding of where ISOC uses funding.
What non profit or otherwise would not contribute to the 47% that don’t have the luxury of access?
This is a global issue. ALL needs considered not just 30% user base of 1 tld.
It is my understanding decisions made were based on global issues
by highly credible individuals with long standing reputations, in the know, boots on the ground, about current and future needs globally,
not JUST the reported “burden” speckspit “needs” of a minority of users.
What we do agree on is greater transparancy from ALL acronyms that have hands in the pie not just ISOC,
AND opponents.
Consolidation of the acronyms involved is a valid consideration.
ICANN- 2012 , 60% increase in fees?
where’s the beef about this ?
5, 10, 15 years have come and gone and it took an accquisition to spark a conversation?
Where have all the dogooders been? – quietly collecting thier own piece of the pie.
Transparancy? – IMO the opposing parties are NOT being transparent or truthfull, and there is zero excuse for this as most, being in the industry, must know what is fact and what is not.
Reverse highjacking!
Worse, IMO, using non profits as a cover and demanding everyone else to be transparent !
I’m all in on any solution that is of benifit to the global community.
SO, replace/ recall boards that aren’t being transparent, wasteful or accountable.
consolidate,
demand recall if claims are FACT
Demand all legacy tld’s to be deemed USA national treasures not to be sold, and all contractual transfers to remain within the USA
in 100% USA companies, with no less than 10% net profit donation required for global support.
DON’T USE non profits, outright false claims skewed, distorted information to get to the same points!
All due respect and no offence intended
Cheers
Appreciate your recent efforts to focus on the bigger issues raised by the sale of .org
appreciate,
modifing the .org ” identity” as linked vs intended.
When speaking of actions of public interest, it is “global” public interest than ICANN is subject to
not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders.
as you state is one of ICANN
responsibilities.
As of today, the “wide spread opposition” as perpetuated in the media, accounts for .003%
of actual .org “stake holders only” and not rhe “global” public interest.
Advocating for a particular set 30%
flies in the face of what ICANN is responsible for.
To claim ‘ there is no public benifit”
is outright FALSE.
As stated pubiically, the endowment is a global public benifit toward access for 4.5 Billion people. FACT
Not just 3 million registrants out of 11+ million.
Whether or not the benifit is real remains in a future outcome.
To publically state as fact that a
“goal” of Ethos is to “subject civil society to supression mechinisms”
is not only a disregard for
“facts” that you have access to, it borders the definition of defamation of character.
please cosider clarification of that statement as opinion vs fact.
IMO no legacy tld should be available for sale,
yet another huge fact that is often left out,
ICANN – can still pull the contract if any “steward” acts in disregard ” in the global public interest”
Please, you have a good argument started on the acronyms that have their hand in the pie, the bigger issue ” in the global public interest”
Separate the two issues.
Your credibility is crucial to effect change.
The minority opposers have a huge problem,
1. if all stake holders are to have a voice why have 35k dogooders not contacted the 11+ million ?
There has been plenty of time to do this yet have chosen to rely on
cheap fodder,
” political ” heavy weights and outright false naratives to “claim”
widespread implied “majority” opposition.
2. 3.5 million “affected”signatures is a minimum to have any actual weigh in, still less than half of majority and it doesn’t even include the 4.5 billion people that potentially benifit globally .
35k is great yet not anywhere near the numbers needed for ICANN to leagally act in favor of the greater ” global public interest”
3. If ICANN does ” bow” to the political pressure and false naratives placed on this deal,
it in “effect”, condones minority stakeholder and political rule without any cosideration of the greater “global public interest”
Opposition is asking for the very same action it is opposing.
More fodder for ICANN accountability.
Thank you in advance for taking on the bigger issues.
Cheers
It might be better to leave these comments on the CircleID article you are referring to, rather than here.
As to your point about Ethos’ “goal”, I did not say Ethos’ goal is to suppress civil society.
I said that ICANN was on the verge of:
1. permanently ceding control of .Org to a private equity firm, whose goal is to enrich itself by extracting huge sums from .org registrants, including its nonprofit users,
and
2. subjecting civil society to suppression mechanisms that can be made available for sale to the highest bidder.
Those are two separate points, and are not meant to be combined into one.
You are confusing the number of .org domain names with the number of .org registrants. Some nonprofits have registered hundreds or thousands of .org domain names.
We know that there are around 10 million .org domain names registered. We don’t know how many different .org registrants there are, but it is far less than 10 million.
Compelling statements have been made in opposition to the sale and supported by hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals.
Only a small number of people have spoken out in favor of the sale, and they often have a connection to the parties involved in the sale. Their strongest argument seems to be that ICANN is forced to allow the sale to go through because poorly written agreements are enabling ISOC to act as owner of .org and to sell this public good for its own benefit, even though ISOC is not the owner of .org.
Although the gist of the argument brooks few objections the facts related to ISOC s acquisition of .org are, if not off the mark, need to be significantly revised to take into account Verisign and the .com situation at the time and the very nature of the whole question … Lynn was initially lukewarm and the IETF argument a convenient addition
It should be borne in mind that ISOCs non profit status was severely strained by funds from .org as these represented too high a percentage of revenue sources
At the time Vint admitted millions of TLDs could have been supported and the whole attribution procedure was tantamount to a stage managed farce
Given TLD pricing elsewhere there is no real justification in suggesting that there has been price gouging of non profits, rather that they should appreciate the modest level of charges enjoyed until recently
This is neither the first nor the last article to underscore both the incestuous nature of ISOC ICANN ETHOS et al executive interrelationships but far too few objections have been publicly raised over the last 20 years
To claim ‘ there is no public benefit”
is outright FALSE.
“whose goal is to enrich itself by extracting huge sums from .org registrants, including its nonprofit users”
permanently ceding control of .Org subjecting civil society to suppression mechanisms
What evidence do you have to make such statements? IMO – calculated
no matter what “side” it comes from.
“Some nonprofits have registered hundreds or thousands of .org domain names.”
Evidence of minority rule?
No confusion at all.
Still a minority of “global” public interest.
My preference is for all legacies to remain in stewardship, original intent to
remain intact, a preservation of American and technology history, not hijacked by a “particular set of stakeholders” of any kind.
Beneficial stewardship is NOT dependent or exclusive of non-profit status.
“Only a small number of people have spoken out in favor of the sale, and they often have a connection to the parties involved in the sale”.
“Their strongest argument seems to be that ICANN is forced to allow the sale”
“because poorly written agreements are enabling”
Their strongest argument seems to be, the truth of history,
5, 10, 15 years have come and gone and so has Ted Cruz !
Nani Cali AG in support of Ted Cruz back then?
Anyone asking for his support today? -That would have more respect!
Opposition connections and motives are equally questionable.
ICANN isn’t “forced” to do anything less than “Global public benefit”
Not even the slightest acknowledgement from opponents of the “GLOBAL”
factor involved in decisions ICANN is obligated to include,
yet a “particular set of minority stakeholders” are insisting that they take action in favor of a “particular set of minority stakeholders” and hijack the original intent of a legacy domain.
Re writing history and contractual obligations has it’s statute of limitations.
Hindsight is not actionable beyond opinion.
This is the weakest link of those opposed. Specspit, fear mongering and
media parroting the same was an interesting choice of strategy. They “seem”
to be aware, most readers believe what they read true or not. A tiny group of
20 people showed up to protest. No reps from the biggest non-profits? Not exactly the wide support I was hoping to see.
My only connection to this event is a long history of non-profit involvement and a real world understanding from boots on the ground to board seats.
My experience in the Corporate world of benefit to non-profit is equally long.
I have traded in domains since 1999 and not .orgs for the benefit of non profits
To imply EVIL intent for being a for profit entity with a connected adviser is beyond pathetic. Much to cynical of a view to be objective.
To “Use” non-profits as a cover for an agenda is, in my view, the lowest of the low. GLOBAL public benefit, truthful equal reporting, NOT minority loud voices with political connections, are why I take the time.
This industry doesn’t need more evidence of “shill bidding” for agendas either.
There are many other more professional ways to address Governance of all the acronyms involved.
The global public interest with the highest need, 4.5 billion not yet served vs
a minority of American non-profits that can afford hundreds or thousand of
domains as you imply ?
How many of 4.5 billion would object to ongoing support?
How do you suggest they be informed without internet access to speak in favor?
ISOC by taking this action is admitting the initial idea may have been beneficial at the time but not necessarily beneficial for all going forward. 16 yrs later.
Ethos was not the only consideration another fact not widely reported.
I oppose the use of,
cheap fodder, political” heavy weights and outright false narratives to “claim”
widespread implied “majority” opposition.
I oppose scapegoating of a for profit while friends and colleagues profit from selling .orgs for 1000+% Yes Fadi “appears” suspect, yet it’s common for CEO’s to become advisers especially in high investment arenas.
I agree,
as J. Robin stated,
“far too few objections have been publicly raised over the last 20 years”,
Where have all the dogooders been? – quietly collecting their own piece of the pie,
and now they want more, including former ICANN board member that was found guilty of actual wrong doing, vendors and their “associates” whose intent I believe is equally questionable, and non-profits that can afford hundreds or thousands of domains, justifiably of course.
I agree,
It is time to focus on ALL that want a piece of the pie to be transparent including those opposed and their incestuous nature. Please include them.
You have a good argument started for transparency and accountability.
Don’t see any opposition on those points.
I do respectfully request that you, as a respected member of the domain community, identify opinion vs fact regardless of the forum.
The lack of truth in reporting of ALL the players of both sides gives reason to pause.
Thanks for responding. I do appreciate your stepping up at this time in Domain history. Much like Ted way back when the issue was even greater, one I supported and like many, also supported ICANN decision to go non-profit.
“seemed” like a good match at the time, and just maybe not good now.
Cheers