Hi,
Yeah, IF (big IF) anyone at ICANN knew about any plans or even intentions to purchase PIR from ISOC at the time the .org Registry Agreement was being renewed, then that would be extremely problematic.
This might actually be the one thing I imagine we might want to and have cause to ask ICANN about. I don’t recall seeing any statement from ICANN on anything concerning the sale of PIR, and I don’t blame them for wanting to stay out of it (if that’s indeed what they’re doing, and I hope it is).
For different reasons, I doubt anybody at ICANN knew anything about this, one of which is that I don't believe the folks at Ethos Capital would put their plans to purchase PIR at jeopardy by letting someone at ICANN find out about it during the contract renewal.
Still…, wouldn’t hurt to have ICANN declare this on-the-record.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Nov 23, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Milton is right that this is clearly a win for ISOC (ISOC Central, hard to see the Chapter benefits). What is disturbing here is not about who the buyers are, but the unknowns about their intentions and the unknowns about who knew what, and who did what, in the background during the process in which the changes were made to the PIR contract.
>
> The buyer intentions with regard to .org domain name registration fees, should their intentions be a significant rise in fees, are 100 percent at the expense of the mainly ngo holders of .org domain names. While this is the current “trickle up” process of wealth distribution in the U.S., where the top 1% holds as much wealth as the top next 49%, many of us would hate to see ngo’s as major donors to that wealth concentration process.
>
> If we had more information, we could assess the new owners' probable intentions. We know PIR’s profits, and ISOC’s take. A business analyst could give a ball-park figure for the asset value of PIR under current registration fee rates. A purchase price significantly above that would suggest planned rate increases, unless one though that the buyers were making a “charitable contribution” to ISOC, an unlikely proposition.
>
> What has transpired is legal, but one is left with questions about the integrity of the process. As the story gradually comes out, and it will, the story may tarnish the integrity of those involved. That would be unfortunate for both ISOC and ICANN.
>
> As to what can be done now, the stakeholder community will have to figure out the next move.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> /* Style Definitions */
> table.MsoNormalTable
> {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
> mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
> mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
> mso-style-noshow:yes;
> mso-style-priority:99;
> mso-style-parent:"";
> mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
> mso-para-margin-top:0in;
> mso-para-margin-right:0in;
> mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
> mso-para-margin-left:0in;
> line-height:107%;
> mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
> font-size:11.0pt;
> font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
> mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
> mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
> mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
> mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
> mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
> mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
|
