[liberationtech] Stop the sale of the Public Interest Registry, says EFF

[Eric Tykwinski]

I’ve not heard any response from ICANN.  I also wonder if it was ever brought up in a DNS-OARC meeting.
ICANN imho is way too political internally, but I thought DNS-OARC was much more operational and more like NANOG, though not perfect at least tries to stay on track.

I’m sure there’s probably links to meetings on the web, if anyone has them, I would be interested.

Sincerely,

Eric Tykwinski
TrueNet, Inc.
P: 610-429-8300

> On Nov 24, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019, David Ulevitch wrote:
>> It’s gross. I’m hoping for, and waiting for, hackers to leak emails (etc) from Fadi and the entire ISOC and PIR staff, along with all affiliates. I’m sure the paper trail will be incredible and illuminating. This appears to be so dirty and corrupt. And the CEO of ISOC, Andrew Sullivan, has refused to say anything.
>> Stopping this feels like a very worthwhile use of my time and money.
> 
> David, you in particular would have a lot of sway on this as a founder of a DNS company, so I hope you do.
> 
> The weak-sauce counter-messaging has begun: https://www.keypointsabout.org/
> 
> The clearest failure seems to be on ICANN here for delegating .ORG registration services without a termination date, only triggers for exit based on non-performance. Thus, there's no way for ICANN to regularly put the registry contract out for re-bid (to get some price competition going, if nothing else) without PIR completely falling over on some specific technical issues (like uptime, etc). Who signs a contract to lend someone an asset without a termination date of any sort?
> 
> So I'm more persuaded by ICA's letter to ICANN than the letter/approach to ISOC:
> 
> https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICA-Letter-to-ICANN-Board-of-Directors-November-15-2019.pdf
> 
> We kind of tolerate ICANN's model of being independent from government and public pressure because we're happy that they can mostly (sadly not entirely) say no to government censors. They run a seemingly-mostly-fair trademark dispute process called the UDRP. There is a ton to criticize them on, but the DNS has held together. But the more they make mistakes like this, the more that top-level governance of the DNS becomes an open question again.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
>> Sent via Superhuman iOS
>> On Sun, Nov 24 2019 at 9:37 AM, <ycompanys at gmail.com> wrote:
>>      EFF and 26 other organizations just sent a letter to the Internet Society (ISOC) urging it to stop the sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR)—the organization that manages the .ORG
>>      top-level domain—to private equity firm Ethos Capital. Our message is clear: .ORG is extremely important to the non-governmental organization (NGO) community, and our community should have
>>      a voice in decisions affecting the future of .ORG. 
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/nonprofit-community-stands-together-protect-org 
>> --
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt.
>> Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20191124/1fbf398b/attachment.html>