But don't you realise
Morals are good but there are beelions to be made here!
At this year's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Berlin, the opening ceremony, featuring German Chancellor Angela Merkel, was immediately followed by an hour-long session on the “future of internet governance.” That session, held yesterday morning, featured seven internet luminaries on stage, including “father of the internet …
RIght, but you can shake the tree the same way these Ethos & Co. crooks are, by ly....mmmm adjusting the truth for interests.
A lot, LOT of college and government domains are on .org, so spread an association between Ethos and the concept of selling such domains and boom, Ethos is selling student's education and tax funded utilities to the highest bidder. Criminals!!! Think of the children!!!
The icon you chose in your post is fitting, fight fire with fire.
I suspect that ISOC cares a lot about its reputation, but please note that it's been living off .org registration revenue for many years, and the deal (if it closes) will effectively convert that revenue stream into an investment fund. ISOC will then live off the returns from that fund until IPv6 addresses run out.
Whether Ethos runs .org ethosically (sorry) is a separate question.
> At a two-day meeting this weekend, its board voted unanimously to allow its CEO Andrew Sullivan to enter into negotiations with Ethos Capital.
If you follow your link there it goes to the meeting on October 29 2019. Obviously such negotiations had been pretty much concluded before the announcement on Nov 13
As to ISOC Netherland's statement. it's from the Chair. Unlike ISOC, where there is sufficient transparency to see Board unanimity, ISOC Netherlands do not publish their minutes. There are 120+ other Chapters/SIGs, none of whom has issued a similar statement.
By Kieren on this issue, which is complex, bureaucratic and a regulatory nightmare. And also quietly ignored by the MSM, probably for those reasons, ie understanding all the players involved and their relationships. Easy bit is the 'special' relations who stand to make a huge amount of money from this unless it's quashed.
Except that, Kieran-like, he editorialises:
Sullivan responded in a blog post making the somewhat remarkable case that .org was never really intended to be for non-profit outfits.and gets it wrong. The case isn't "remarkable"; it's strictly true. RFC1591 defined .org in 1994 with these words:
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here.Nothing whatever to do with non-profit.
"And also quietly ignored by the MSM, probably for those reasons, ie understanding all the players involved and their relationships."
The BBC have reported on it and if they are not "MSM" then no one is. On they other hand, they did lead with "Girl Scouts oppose sale of .org" or something like that. They left the fact it was the Girl Scouts of America until further into the story, initial implying at was actual girl scouts, possibly British, who were opposing it rather than the corporate body.
“Although .org has often been thought of as a ‘home of non-profits,’ the domain was not actually defined that way,” he wrote, citing IETF document RFC 1591 from 1994.
He should have been more careful what he quoted. That RFC also says "It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created."
Not at all irrelevant. It does not matter that .org was not meant exclusively for non-profits. What matters is that non-profits, for decades, had no other TLD that fit (that was appropriate to their charter). (Furthermore, for what it's worth, the public probably thinks of the .org TLD as being at least primarily for non-profits.)
If this deal is consummated, it seems likely that all .org domain-holders will have to pay a fortune to keep their TLD, or move to a new one, all because an insider with a conflict of interest was able to pull off a quick and quiet deal before anyone could stop it.
Where’s the public interest? Where’s the governance? Where’s the transparency? Where’s the oversight?
So RFC1591 from 1994, and Jon Postel. AKA he who must be obeyed, because generally he was right.
These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166.
That was then, and symptomatic of the Internet's US-centric approach. So gov, edu & mil being US government, education and military. A few years later, .com got hived off to Verisign, and a decision being that you needed to be a proper company to get a .com, ie send a letter head showing company name & registration number to get registered. Similar policy applied for .co.uk
Sometimes those 'rules' weren't strictly enforced. But one consequence was that for .you and .me*, we'd not be able to register a .com, leaving .org for odds & sodds and similar non-profits. A UK charity or US 501(c)(3) could theoretically be a .com, as in it's a distinct company per UK and US Title 26, but custom & practice was .com = Commercial and .org=non-profit.
That's pretty much how it's been perceived since 1994 till now.
Thinking about this some more, I suspect Arby.. I mean Abry's behind this. So they bought Donuts, who bought a lot of expensive .garbage. Brooks, the Ethos person who isn't ex-ICANN is ex-Abry, and apparently was a key mover behind the Donuts deal. I suspect that deal hasn't been good for Abry given the outlay for noveau-TLDs vs actual demand for those TLDs. So adding .org to the portfolio would provide a pretty much guaranteed revenue stream and a way for Abry to cash out, along with the other ICANN/ISOC insiders.
One potential fly in the oinkment is if regulators decide that the way this sale has been conducted isn't exactly in line with fiduciary responsibilities of a 501(c)(3) entity, which could mean fines and/or jail time for execs & trustees. It may just raise eyebrows with the IRS.. Or may not. I think it'd be hard post-acquisition to justify keeping 501(c)(3) status, so would lose tax exemptions. Then again, it's not exactly difficult to shunt profits off-shore to dodge any US tax liabilities.
(And another thing I've found is prospects for good netizenship. Some of Abry (and one of Ethos's) other investments are in the ad-slinging and analytics sphere.)
"It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created."
That was Postel's view in 1994. By 1998 when he died, he knew that new TLDs had become inevitable, mainly due to the Clinton Administration, and Ira Magaziner in particular, who were trying to move the Internet from governmental to commercial hands.
I'm probably getting old, but I remember the times when people still tried to retain a semblance of honesty and integrity. Not that they were actually honest, no, but they acknowledged that they were supposed to.
Today nobody bothers, on the contrary, they are proud not to be weighed down by such outdated notions, unfit for any predatory businessperson worth its salt...
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world / That has such people in it!
I'm probably getting old, but I remember the times when people still tried to retain a semblance of honesty and integrity. Not that they were actually honest, no, but they acknowledged that they were supposed to.
That's why I think this story deserves more attention. It's a $1bn+ scandal after all. And I don't think there's any justification doing it. Ethos seems to have been specifically created as an SPV to take over .org. ISOC might get a large cash lump but future revenues would flow to Ethos... And there's a lot of cash, especially as renewal prices increase.
It's also incredibly bad governance. So there's a period of exclusivity for negotiations... Which is bass-ackwards. If it was decided that privatising .org was a Good Thing for the Internet, the sane approach would be to issue an RFP and/or auction. That would have avoided the obvious conflicts of interest Kieren's been highlighting.
I'm also curious what options stakeholders may have to get legal about this, and the apparent legality of this self-dealing. Not sure how that fits with US law, or which agency might be interested in having a look.
Who is behind Ethos?
Good question. So-
https://ethoscapital.com/
Ethos Capital is a new investment company firmly rooted in the belief that prosperity can be built and shared with all the stakeholders in our investment ecosystem.
Thus far, there seems to be 2 public stakeholders, Erik Brooks and Nora Abusitta-Ouri (CPO? CPO!). The latter being.. interesting-
At ICANN, Ms. Abusitta-Ouri launched and grew ICANN’s Development and Public Responsibility Department, with a focus on ICANN's approach to corporate social responsibility and the organization’s role as an enabler of growth in the domain name industry and related industries.
So with a background in CSR, she should know that this looks.. bad. But hey ho, think of the enabling growth from those domain renewals. At $10 a time, that's potentially $600m to share between stakeholders.
Then there's Chehade, also ex-ICANN and allegedly an 'advisor' to Ethos. And also registered the domain name, which OK, could constitute advice, especially if Mr Brooks or Ms Abusitta-Ouri didn't know how to do that. Which they should given their past, present and future planned-for roles as guardians of the .org
But that's all part of the problem. Ethos's website is rather light on information, especially normal VC-type stuff, so how much they're managing, people, PR etc.
Oh, ps..
http://eaaid.eu/accueil/board-members/
Nora Abusitta-Ouri, Currently Chief Engagement Officer and Senior Advisor to the Chair at Chehadé & Company, served as Senior Vice President of Public Responsibility Programs at ICANN and Executive Director of International and Intergovernmental Organizations at ICANN
Another little piece to highlight the cosy relationship between ICANN insiders/Abry/Ethos.
If it was decided that privatising .org was a Good Thing for the Internet
What on Earth do you mean? The TLD business was privatised in 1998 when the US Government forced the creation of ICANN. That's when .org was privatised, and when registering names became a competitive market -- whether you liked it or not (and I didn't, but facts are facts). After about 5 years, in 1983 .org was transferred to Public Interest Registry Inc. (which is itself a non-profit corporation, but there is no such restriction for other .org registrants).
If you actually read the information posted recently by pir.org, you might get a less distorted view of what is actually happening.
If you actually read the information posted recently by pir.org, you might get a less distorted view of what is actually happening.
Not really. So hot off PIR's press-
https://thenew.org/the-internet-society-public-interest-registry-a-new-era-of-opportunity/
This transaction aligns PIR with a strong, new strategic partner, Ethos Capital, that not only possesses a deep understanding of the intricacies of the domain industry, but also has the ideal mix of expertise, experience and shared values to further advance the goals of .ORG into the future.
Yey! So sounds like Ethos Capital is a well established entity that has a long track record that demonstrates corporate social responsibility along with solid financial performance of the assets under management.
Or it appeared out of the blue and has zero track record.
But wait, there's more!
Once the transaction is completed, PIR will continue to meet the highest standards of public transparency, accountability, and social performance in line with its longstanding purpose-driven mission, and will consider seeking B Corporation certification.
Pinky promise! So currently it's 'privatised' as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit. B Coporation isn't an equivalent and has no real legal standing. That statement in itself should signal motive, ie replacing a regulated not-for-profit structure with B Corp. Maybe. The rest is just meaningless marketing bollocks, especially given the process thus far has been anything but transparent, accountable or socially responsible.
ps. On the plus side.. PIR can look forward to "Rapid sensorization of physical and biological infrastructures". Not sure if that means staff will be asset tagged and monitored.
to paraphrase your words, a discussion on a different, and yet the very same issue ("Official secrets"), on youtube, around 38 min 10 sec (Martin Bright):
youtube.com/watch?v=CWtIu7mbnbM
"It's easy to be nostalgic how things were with Bush and Blair, because it looks like, these people were easier to hold to account (...). For all their faults, it seems to me that Tony Blair and George Bush understood that if they were caught in a lie, that was a problem for them. They knew the difference between truth, lies and propaganda. They may have chosen to push those boundaries, but they did know the difference and they knew that it mattered if they were caught. I think our problem now, and I think this applies on both sides of the Atlantic, is that we have populist politicians for whom it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you catch them out in the lie, because they don't care, because they lie as a matter of course and they change what they say from day to day. Now, that shouldn't mean we shouldn't hold them to accounts, it means that the job is even more difficult than it was before."
Whatever I think of the people in charge, I would take Trump and his thieving gang in a heartbeat over Blair, Bush and Hillary, simply because their lies led to massive wars and his do not.
I imagine the inhabitants of the Middle East, dead or alive, concur.
realise the path that the USA and UK are being led down
It's a path we've all been down before - except that this time the differentiation isn't determined by some myth of aristocracy but by wealth and access to information.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Have you read RFC 1591 for content? It quite clearly states that it does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Second sentence of the first paragraph.
Still, they did plan to restrict .edu assignments only to 4 years colleges/universities - other schools are not educational institutes as well?
Meanwhile, they gave away /8 IP blocks to anybody asking - just to find it was stupid later.
Things changes - what .org became is probably more important than what the RFC said.
".org has never been reserved for non-profit registrants."
But it became the home of most non profit registrants. How does the above quote justify selling off .org for a billion? How does it justify selling the thing they were entrusted with to the highest bidder? Why should they get to pull a billion dollar out of the paying registrants?
they won't sell gov, because they'd have a few govs lighting up their asses. You don't pick up a fight with somebody who can hit you back and then drive you into the ground if you piss him off. You pick somebody weak, fragmented, with no money and no real power. After all, what are we, the plebs, do about it? Vote those (...) out?
Will they sell off .GOV in a year or two?
The registrar for that is the US General Services Administration, so I suggest you ask them.
trust in the .ORG name
That's a very curious concept. In what sense can you have trust in an arbitrary string of 3 letters that are part of a longer name that (since 1998) has simply been reserved for a small sum of money. Would "iamaswindler.org" seem more trustworthy than "iamaswindler.com"?
Christ, Republicans have become such weenies, wailing and moaning every time anyone implies that they're a bunch of venal, corrupt scumbags who would feed their own grandmothers to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal for a bushel of cash and a sloppy reacharound. Is it because the criticism hits too close to home?
Anyway, try reading El Reg circa 2008-2016 wherein they frequently lambasted the coziness of the Obama administration with Google. Also, try reading the comments, wherein I believe you will find few Democrats pissing and moaning about how very unfair they find the anti-Democratic editorial slant of The Register compared to how readily Republicans specifically and conservatives generally blow their damn fuses over the most minor slights.
Pfft. Hrmmph. HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HA ! HAAAAAA !
That was a good one. I needed that.
ICANN has accountability like I have syphilis - none has been detected.
A national Ethos will characterize each country's feelings about morality and social well-being. America's is defined by going after the money and subordinating society to individual gain, by which method they think the greater good is best propelled.
The wise old creatures of the Cato Institute and the Mises Organisation can far better explain this than I ever can, since I have less grounding in Applied Greed.
Republican morality also demands vaster rewards for the Rich because of the greater effort and sacrifice they put in by risking their wealth and their undertaking looking after other people's monies *; which also has been a national feature since the Founding --- when they fought a Revolution to steal Indian land and sold their fellow countrymen wooden nutmegs.
·
* See George Washington, Astor, Gould, Fisk, Rockefeller Sr., to Bill Gates, the Waltons, Romney, Hillary Clinton and Bloomberg today.
... a ‘home of non-profits,’ the domain was not actually defined that way,” Well played, sir. Unrelated: There's nothing in the law that explicitly says I can't come to the street outside of your house every morning at 2 AM and noisely fsck a cantelope I have hidden underneath my rain poncho.
....
Parking spaces in Detroit. Highway 407 in Toronto. Bridges all over the US.
Selling infrastructure in perpetuity to VC's is commonplace, and consistently the same scam. $$$ into pocket today, prices rise, profits for the VC rise, and the end users end up getting screwed sixteen ways to sunday.
Selling infrastructure in perpetuity to VC's is commonplace, and consistently the same scam. $$$ into pocket today, prices rise, profits for the VC rise, and the end users end up getting screwed
Much like the public/private partnerships much beloved to the Blair government (and successive governments) - you get a private organisation to build a school/hospital/council building and then lease it from them at an extortionate cost for the next 25 years (while paying them a fortune to maintain it for you).
Sure, it avoids spending capital budget but you then end up giving vast[1] amounts of public cash to private companies - some of whom have fairly bad reputations and questionable practices.
[1] Over the lifetime of the deal, a order of magnitude higher than what it would have cost to build and run said building. But short-term governmental thinking doesn't concern itself beyond the current budget cycle unless forced to.
The video link in the article takes you to an empty stage early in the morning session. The outside questions segment starts around 7:49:38.
Spoiler alert: The .org question is not even acknowledged up-front and the presenter who hands off the iPad claims another question about the future of parliaments in Internet regulation is the most popular.
Part way through is this:
At around 1550 local time, Cerf, as meeting chairman, was handed an iPad and the top question, of 172 asked, was: “What’s your opinion on the .org sale and what this means for not-for-profits?”
Should that not have been immediately followed with the clear statment that the question was ignored ? Why bury six graphs later:
He needn’t have worried because, despite the internet community actively voting to have the issue of the .org sale raised on stage and despite it being the issue of greatest current concern to the 'net governance world, neither the moderator nor Cerf asked it, nor even mentioned its existence.
"We truly believe that this transaction is good for all stakeholders because it allows PIR to invest in the registry and expand services for the benefit of all registrants"
If you own a domain name, you need to know it's globally unique. And from a registry that's all you need. So what exactly are these new "services"?