debate The fight for .ORG: is it about MONEY or is it about CONTROL?

[Rob Monster]

As some here are aware, I previously presented the bullish case for .ORG:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/why-i-am-bullish-on-org-plutocratic-guilt.1161692/

Although I remain bullish on the .ORG TLD as a domain asset class, there is now a footnote on .ORG because of the change of control event and the precedent that it represents for a major registry.

In the wake of organized backlash against the Ethos/PIR.org deal from capable organizations such as EFF, it appears that propagandists are makeing a case for "nothing to see here". For example note this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/dot-org-domain.html

This article was written by a Stanford undergrad with a Stanford prof as the byline. Fade Chehade is a Stanford alum. This looks like a propaganda instrument. In fact, I put the odds at 90:10 on that.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that this is not about money. After all, Donuts is not exactly killing it since Abry took over. However, they now control a whopping 242 TLDs. These people are not stupid nor are they lazy.

Fadi is a globalist and an elite technocrat. He has a keen understanding of power, governance and realpolitik. I believe he is entirely sincere about what he thinks it is at stake. Check out his short TED interview:

https://www.ted.com/talks/fadi_cheh...itizens_can_do_to_claim_power_on_the_internet

The timing of this talk was curious. September 2018 is when the digital censorship programs went into overdrive. As some folks know, I was on the front line of that when Godaddy booted Gab.

Fadi wants "Geneva conventions", "technocratic oaths" and "stewards" for acceptable use.

Fadi also comments on Artificial Intelligence. He is absolutely right. Most folks have no idea how much impact AI combined with structured data, wireless broadband, and open standards is going to change the word.

People with access to domains, hosting and vast libraries of open source code, are capable of wielding remarkable things. The tools are already amazing. I believe AI is also in the process of being democratized.

As power of internet publishing gravitates to individuals, the framework for governance on the Internet comes down to the gatekeepers, of which domain registries play a critical role for at least the next 10 years.

Blockchain is plodding along to create a decentralized alternative. It is not ready for prime time yet. However, domains can become more resilient. That is where Epik is focused.

Now that the main industry pundits have had their commentary on .ORG, I am curious to hear what the open source community has to say about the .ORG transaction and its implications. Let's hear it.

 

[mems]

The .org domain takeover has been delayed, at least for now.

https://mashable.com/article/california-attorney-general-dot-org-sale/

https://www.strategicrevenue.com/bad-news-for-icann-pressure-intensifies-for-decision-behind-org-price-cap-removals/

 

[oldtimer]

There has to be a balance between corporations' interests and rights and the public's interests and rights.

For a private equity company to take over .org which many think of as being a public resource will be the same as if a private company is taken over and nationalized.

There has to be some safeguards and protections put in place in both case.

IMO

 

[Lox]

Read more (EFF)

After Nonprofits Protest at ICANN, California's Attorney General Steps Into the .ORG Battle

... We’re glad to see the Attorney General investigating the sale on behalf of nonprofit organizations. In addition to answering the Attorney General, ICANN should also respond to the many questions posed by the nonprofit community itself, many of which overlap. Three big questions the nonprofit community continues to ask of ICANN and PIR: How does Ethos plan on paying back the debt it will accrue in the purchase of PIR, without negatively impacting .ORGs? What “new products and services” does Ethos intend to offer to the .ORG ecosystem that makes this sale necessary? And will those new products and services serve the needs of nonprofits, or exploit them?

People who work on Internet governance issues get nervous when governments throw their weight around, and for good reason: ICANN volunteers have worked hard to keep the domain name system and other parts of the Internet’s governance structure out of government hands. Since 2016, ICANN is no longer formally supervised by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and no national government can dictate policy there, as much as some may want to. Instead of answering to governments, ICANN is supposed to answer to the community of Internet users.

Read more (EFF)

 

[Lox]

Domain Name Troubles for .org

The TCA Entrepreneurs, Accounting, Finance & Tax crew discuss the rising challenges of registering a domain name under .org, especially how it may affect non-profits.

 

[Lox]

The Controversial Sale of the .ORG Registry: EFF Joins A Public Chat in Washington, DC February 11, 2020 - 12:00pm to 2:00pm

Public Interest Registry (PIR), which runs the .ORG domain, may be sold to a private equity firm, becoming a for-profit company. On Tuesday, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz will join experts from the nonprofit and domain name worlds in a public fireside chat to discuss the sale of PIR and what it means for free speech and Internet governance.

read more / register (EFF)

 

[Jurgen Wolf]

Any information about Afilias destiny after this sale?
It remains or will be replaced by another party like Neustar etc.?

 

[Lox]

Addressing Recent Media Mischaracterizations of the .ORG Acquisition
By Nora Abusitta-Ouri (ethos)

When we heard concerns from the community about Ethos coming in and raising prices, we addressed them head on — that's why Ethos has committed to limiting any potential increase in the price of a .ORG domain registration to no more than 10% per year on average, even though today there are no regulatory pricing constraints on PIR or virtually any other domain name registry. To be clear, this is in line with the historical practices of PIR before the price caps were lifted. At less than $10 today, .ORG is one of the most affordable domains in the world, and it will continue to be — even a 10% increase would equate to about $1.

There has also been concern voiced around for-profit ownership, with some going so far as to incorrectly portray .ORG as "one of the last bastions of the internet to remain staunchly nonprofit".

Read more (circled)

 

[DomainRecap]

If Ethos s so entrenched into not raising prices past what the old contract allowed, then why are they not willing to re-institute contracted price limits, and why did the "company" coincidentally only put up their massive offer to buy PIR right *after* the decision to negate price restrictions?

One would think it was all an orchestrated move with the removal of price restrictions being a condition of the offer and subsequent sale.

"Ethos has committed to limiting any potential increase in the price of a .ORG domain registration to no more than 10% per year on average"

Then put the price restrictions back in the contract. Done.

 

[Lox]

ICANN has denied a request from one of its overseers to release more information about the acquisition of .org manager Public Interest Registry.

read more (domainincite)

 

[bmugford]

In related news, I would suggest people send ICANN a comment about their proposed raising of .COM registration prices.

You can either do it via ICANN -

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

or the ICA form -

https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-com/

I submitted the following -

I am strongly opposed to the proposed price increase to .COM domains.

The following entry is from ICANN's website-

"ICANN is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants
from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable
and interoperable."

ICANN is supposed to operate for the public benefit. I don't believe this
policy would fall under "public benefit".

There is no financial justification to raise the price. It is simply
because they can.

Advancements in technology are driving the cost of operating a registry
down, yet domain prices keep going up for registrants.

Verisign is merely the manager, not the owner, of the .COM Registry. It
is allowed to operate the extension by contract and should have no role in
setting the price.

There is no "public benefit" justification to these changes. It is simply
a handout to a company with a de facto monopoly at the expense of
registrants.

This is on the heels of the .ORG contract debacle where ICANN ignored the
overwhelming public sentiment against it, and moved forward in removing
price caps.

Now we also have the pending .ORG sale to a private equity company which
involves several former ICANN leaders and connected parties. This deal is
currently being investigated by the California Attorney General.

ICANN is facing a crisis in credibility. Is ICANN working in the public
interest or not?

Brad Mugford
DataCube.com

 

[tonyk2000]

I submitted the following -

A great input. I'd also include a reference to their obligation to select registries using open and competitive bidding process (applicable to .org, and to .com/.net at least). This obligation is actually included into some old legal texts regulating their activities, which are still in force. (extra references are required here). Hope that California Attorney General will raise this question as well

 

[bmugford]

A great input. I'd also include a reference to their obligation to select registries using open and competitive bidding process (applicable to .org, and to .com/.net at least). This obligation is actually included into some old legal texts regulating their activities, which are still in force. (extra references are required here). Hope that California Attorney General will raise this question as well

I agree. I tried to touch on that concept with part of my comments -

Advancements in technology are driving the cost of operating a registry down, yet domain prices keep going up for registrants.

Verisign is merely the manager, not the owner, of the .COM Registry.

It is simply a handout to a company with a de facto monopoly at the expense of registrants.

I just didn't want to write a novel on it.

Brad

 

[branding]

In related news, I would suggest people send ICANN a comment about their proposed raising of .COM registration prices.

You can either do it via ICANN -

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-3-2020-01-03-en

or the ICA form -

https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-com/

I submitted the following -

Thanks. I think I saw this mentioned somewhere earlier this week but you're the first to draw attention to it.

Might be time to register savedotcom.com

 

[Lox]

Market Phobia Comes to Cyberspace
What’s behind the campaign to block the sale of a web registry?

... There’s a larger point here about “stakeholder capitalism,” which is coming into fashion. Ethos emphasizes its commitment to all “stakeholders,” not just its owners, and apparently will give some teeth to those commitments in its charter for the .org registry. Yet that’s not enough for many activists, who see private capital as inherently exploitative rather than a source of value creation and technological progress enjoyed by all.

The nonprofits raising a fuss over Ethos are vehicles of political interests. The real danger is that Icann will be intimidated, hurting the reputation for political independence of what should be the web’s honest broker.

read more (Wall Street Journal)

 

[oldtimer]

The real danger is that Icann will be intimidated, hurting the reputation for political independence of what should be the web’s honest broker.

They left the word Stock out, it should say:

hurting the reputation for political independence of what should be the web’s honest Stock broker.

 

[Lox]

EFF, Internet Society, and Professors To Discuss Controversial Sale of the .ORG Registry

Fireside chat > Live Webcast
Tuesday Feb 11, 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm
American University Washington College of Law

Live Webcast

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz will discuss EFF’s concerns about the deal, and what it means for the future of large and small organizations whose websites depend on the .ORG registry to communicate online with clients, donors, and the public at large.

“The decision to sell the .ORG registry to a for-profit private equity firm run by domain name insiders came about after price caps on the registry were removed and changes in the .ORG Registry Agreement set new enforcement processes that can be used to censor organizations’ speech,” said Stoltz. “The NGO community has important questions about how speech rights will be protected and what mechanisms will exist to address these concerns. We look forward to having a dialogue with Internet Society and other groups about the future of Internet speech in light of this planned sale.”

Tomorrow’s (Tuesday Feb 11, 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm) panel includes Andrew Sullivan, Internet Society CEO; Benjamin Leff, American University Washington College of Law professor whose scholarship focuses on nonprofit regulations, and Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center CEO and former chair of the Public Interest Registry (PIR). Kathryn Kleiman, former director of policy for PIR who is now practitioner-in-residence at American University Washington College of Law’s Intellectual Property & Tech Law Clinic, will facilitate the panel discussion.

read more (EFF)

 

[oldtimer]

Here are some more of my thoughts on the sale of .org

The .org Heist!

 

[Lox]

ICANN Board quizzes Internet Society over .Org sale

ICANN’s Board of Directors is asking Internet Society (ISOC) pointed questions about the proposed sale of Public Interest Registry, which operates .org, to private equity company Ethos Capital.

Maarten Botterman, chair of the board, sent a letter (pdf) to Gonzalo Camarillo, chair of the ISOC Board of Trustees, on February 13. The letter asks 18 questions, and many of them relate to how .org will be run as it relates to Internet Society’s proposal when it was awarded the domain extension.

read more (domainnamewire)

 

[Lox]

The Sale of .ORG Registry: Continuing the Conversation We Should Be Having

Misapprehension
1: PIR is being sold for the wrong price
2: This is a dangerous leveraged buyout with lots of debt
3: A public auction should have been held
4: Considerations from 2002 override everything

By Andrew Sullivan (President and CEO, Internet Society)

Read more (circled)

 

[Lox]

Ethos Capital Announces Accountability Initiatives to Secure a Strong Future for .ORG

...
.ORG COMMUNITY DISCUSSION

The principals from Ethos, PIR and the Internet Society will host a community discussion on Thursday, February 27, 2020 from 3:00 – 4:00 PM EST (8:00-9:00 PM UTC) to provide additional details on these important commitments. More information about this event may be found at keypointsabout.org/events.

Ethos, PIR, and the Internet Society look forward to hosting additional community discussions in the coming weeks

read more (keypointsabout)

 

[Lox]

Feb 21 2020: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) Education Fund today called on ICANN and private equity firm Ethos Capital to make public secret details--hidden costs, loan servicing fees, and inducements to insiders--about financing the $1.1 billion sale of the .ORG domain registry.

EFF and AFR today also urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the leveraged buyout, which will have profound effects on millions of charities, public interest organizations, and nonprofits--and the consumers who rely on them--around the world. The deal would turn the .ORG registry--run for 17 years by the nonprofit Public Interest Registry (PIR) organization--into a for-profit enterprise controlled by a private equity firm that is partially funding the deal with a $360 million term loan.

Read more (iFrame PDF) / Download PDF > Attached

 

[oldtimer]

If there are going to be any restrictions put in place or promises made by anyone for protecting the .org registrants' rights and interests we just have to make sure that there is no time limit attached to them that will make them expire when it comes to the future generation registrants.

Yes, lets not forget about the Future Generation .Org Registrants.

IMO

 

[Lox]

Ethos Capital has volunteered to have price caps written back into Public Interest Registry’s .org contract, should ICANN approve its $1.1 billion proposed acquisition.

The private equity firm said Friday that it has offered to agree to a new, enforceable Public Interest Commitment that bakes its right to increase prices into the contract under a strict formula that goes like this:

Applicable Maximum Fee = $9.93 x (1.10n)

read more (domainincite)

 

[Lox]

Webinar
The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement

Date: Thursday, February 27

Time: 15:00 – 16:00 EST/ 20:00 – 21:00 UTC

PIR, Ethos, and ISOC invite you to a community discussion on Thursday, February 27, from 15:00 – 16:00 EST/ 20:00 – 21:00 UTC to discuss the company’s commitments for the future of .ORG.

Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion.

read more (keypointsabout.org)

Direct Link (active on 3pm est, 8pm utc):
https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736

 

[bmugford]

Webinar
The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement

Date: Thursday, February 27

Time: 15:00 – 16:00 EST/ 20:00 – 21:00 UTC

PIR, Ethos, and ISOC invite you to a community discussion on Thursday, February 27, from 15:00 – 16:00 EST/ 20:00 – 21:00 UTC to discuss the company’s commitments for the future of .ORG.

Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion.

read more (keypointsabout.org)

Direct Link (active on 3pm est, 8pm utc):
https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736

An hour event. Woo.

This is not going to change any minds.
The .ORG community is clearly against this deal.

If ICANN approves this deal it is without any proper financial impact studies AND over the objections of the entire community.

Brad