Subject: .org sale - bidding process

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 21:19:45 -0800

Hi,

ISOC Board of Trustees member Mike Godwin wrote on twitter:

"The biggest question about how to #SaveDotOrg is this: what is the path
forward that doesn’t slowly (or quickly) starve .ORG to death?" [0]

It's fair for the board to consider the sale of .org.

What was the bidding process? I've looked, and haven't seen many details.

thanks,
Rob

[0] https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/1217976049134374912

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:45:31 -0500

Hi,

(ISOC hat on.)

I've said before that I don't think the IETF list is a good place to
discuss the PIR transaction, and unless the Sergeants-at-Arms disagree
with me I'm going to maintain that position.  (I see even less reason
for this to be on a W3C list.)  I'll respond to this question
off-list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
[email-masked]
+1 416 731 1261

---

From: Viktor Dukhovni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 13:51:53 -0500

> for this to be on a W3C list.)  I'll respond to this question

Don't know about the SAs, but when I joined ISOC, so I could subscribe
to the appropriate discussion lists, I could not find anything on the
ISOC site that made it possible to find or join such a list.

This topic being of broad interest to the Internet community, it does
not seem too far fetched to touch on it here.

-- 
    Viktor.

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:44:06 -0800

> for this to be on a W3C list.)  I'll respond to this question

I'm inclined to disagree - ietf@ feels like an appropriate place to
discuss, since this is of substantial concern to the Internet-engineering
community.

But I might be wrong - is there another place that clearly is an
appropriate home for this discussion?  Thanks in advance.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 19:50:37 +0000

>But I might be wrong - is there another place that clearly is an appropriate home for this discussion?  Thanks in advance.

*Public* forum, that is.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:31:37 +0000

Hi,

(Lists trimmed.  There is no way this is a W3C issue.)

> discuss, since this is of substantial concern to the Internet-engineering

That isn't a reason to hold the discussion on the IETF list.  I mean,
presumably the Internet-engineering community is concerned about the
possibility of war between the United States and Iran, but I think
that would also be off-topic on the IETF general list.  
 
> appropriate home for this discussion?  Thanks in advance.

I've pointed to it before, but a lot of discussion is happening on the
ISOC internet-policy list.  You do need to have an ISOC member account
and the archives are not open.  This is the result of our
understanding of how the GDPR affected our ability to have open
archives of lists that were set up before we got everyone's assent to
an open archive.  Full disclosure: the user interface for some of this
is not great.  We're working on it.

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 21:21:52 +0000

Hi,

ISOC hat still on.

> is not great.  We're working on it.

I've had some questions about this.  Here's how you sign up:

1. go here: https://portal.isoc.org/
2. sign in (or sign up)
3. Click on the picture of you (or where one would be) in the upper-right corner and click on "Profile"
4. Click on "Preferences" tab.
5. Click on "edit" in the "EMAIL CONSENT AND GENERAL CHANNELS" section.
6. Select "internet policy" and save.

Nobody is more irritated than I am about how hard that is, though I
think I can safely say that many other people are as irritated as I am
by it.  It's on the TODO list.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:02:37 -0800

perhaps "I don't think the IETF list is a good place to discuss the PIR
transactio" does not have the best cosmetics for a subject where folk
have expressed concern of discussion suppression.

randy

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 22:17:16 +0000

Hi,

> have expressed concern of discussion suppression.
 
Please let me be perfectly clear.  I am not trying to suppress
discussion in any way.  But there are three factors at play here:

	1.  The IETF list is supposed to be a list about IETF and the
	topics of direct relevance to its work.  I have said, here on this
	list, that ISOC's commitment to IETF funding is in no way
	diminished by this proposed transaction and will continue whatever
	the outcome.  Other than that, there is literally nothing about
	this transaction that has any technical implications at all.  The
	IETF list would be an inappropriate list to discuss the corporate
	owner of the operator of .nl or .ca or .us or .biz or .info or
	.com.  For the same reason, I cannot see even a little bit an
	argument for how the PIR transaction is on topic here, and I don't
	wish to distract the IETF from the important work it does.

	2.  There is in fact a list that has had a lot of traffic, and
	that is open to anyone here who wants to subscribe, where the
	topic is being discussed.  Just as people often frown on
	cross-posting or (worse) "WG shopping" in the IETF, I think adding
	another list where discussion goes on will not help.

	3.  This is perhaps a more pragmatic reason, but I have limited
	capacity to follow the IETF list with great diligence, and I have
	been trying very hard to answer questions people have about this
	proposed transaction.  To my chagrin, I no longer contribute in
	anything like a meaningful way to the IETF (admittedly, there are
	likely those who will say I never did), so I really just cannot
	keep up with IETF list traffic.  If people wish to discuss the
	topic here on the IETF list, what is most likely to happen is that
	I won't be able to answer their questions in reasonable time.
	Other ISOC personnel are engaged in working on ISOC's efforts to
	build, promote, and defend the Internet.  That's what we exist
	for, and I am not willing to pull them out of those efforts in
	order to follow a discussion here in a venue where I think the
	topic is not appropriate anyway (for the above reasons).
	Obviously, I can't police what people might talk about on the IETF
	list, and if you want to talk about this here and the SAA is
	prepared to allow it, go ahead.  But _I_ don't think it's
	appropriate and you'll get better service if you ask questions on
	a different list.

I hope that helps make my view plainer.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:35:27 -0800

> have expressed concern of discussion suppression.

This seems like an argument that really proves too much. Suppose someone
wanted to discuss the US presidential election on the IETF list and then
expressed concern over discussion suppression, would that mean it was bad
optics to suggest that the IETF list wasn't the best place?

-Ekr

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:43:49 -0800

> (Lists trimmed.  There is no way this is a W3C issue.)

The purpose www-archive is: "Miscellaneous. Mail-to-web gateway."

> That isn't a reason to hold the discussion on the IETF list.
>

The IETF list is actually pretty tightly moderated. I haven't heard of or
gotten any objections about this topic from the moderators.

So, what was the bidding process? Maybe a link to an ISOC web page about
the process would be helpful. That's what I was looking for, not a
discussion.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:24:05 -0800

> optics to suggest that the IETF list wasn't the best place?

Maybe a better argument is that 4 members of the ISOC board are appointed
by the IETF. (https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/)

A public web page (n.b. not a "discussion") detailing the bidding process
seems like something the IETF might reasonably expect from its board
members.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:23:17 -0800

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:24 PM Rob Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:

> seems like something the IETF might reasonably expect from its board

It's important to note that while different groups make appointments to the
Board, Internet Society Trustees do not represent specific constituencies
after elections.  Each Trustees serves the organization as a whole.
Whatever expectations you have of the board, you should have them of all of
them, not simply those appointed by the IETF.

I do note that Gonzalo, Richard, and Mike have each written about the sale:

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/12/the-sale-of-pir-the-internet-society-board-perspective/

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191127_why_i_voted_to_sell_org/

https://www.keypointsabout.org/blog/heres-how-we-can-truly-savedotorg

In general, https://www.keypointsabout.org/ appears to be the web site you
are looking for, as it describes the board and supporters position.

regards,

Ted Hardie
(No hats being worn)

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:37:14 -0800

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> In general, https://www.keypointsabout.org/ appears to be the web site
> you are looking for, as it describes the board and supporters position.
>

Not really. There is a bullet point on https://www.keypointsabout.org/facts
that says:

"The Internet Society did not believe that the other offers would have been
advantageous to the Internet Society or its work, so as to merit serious
consideration of a sale."

But there's no indication that they actually publicly put .org up for sale.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 17:54:13 -0800

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:37 PM Rob Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Not really. There is a bullet point on
> https://www.keypointsabout.org/facts that says:
>
> "The Internet Society did not believe that the other offers would have
> been advantageous to the Internet Society or its work, so as to merit
> serious consideration of a sale."
>

Ah, that's actually in there too.

"When Ethos originally approached the Internet Society with its proposal,
Ethos made it clear it was not interested in participating in a long
drawn-out process, and requested that the Internet Society keep its
proposal confidential."

Seems totally normal.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Sergeant-at-Arms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:33:42 -0700

Hi all,

We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team
(described in more detail at [1]) consider this thread [2] to be more
appropriate for the ISOC internet-policy[3][4]. And as per the IETF
discussion list charter [5], we suggest that the discussions should be
moved to the more specific forum identified.

Thanks,
Matthew Miller on behalf of the SAA team

[1] https://www.ietf.org/how/lists/discussion/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mgDAvVJ96bwvwCGz80Ww2eVunfI
[3] https://portal.isoc.org
[4] Instructions to join detailed in <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tow2sscnj5bK5GKA97vv-rzu-CI >
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3005

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:33:40 -0800

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> It's important to note that while different groups make appointments to
> the Board, Internet Society Trustees do not represent specific
> constituencies after elections.  Each Trustees serves the organization as a
> whole.   Whatever expectations you have of the board, you should have them
> of all of them, not simply those appointed by the IETF.
>

Thank you for your opinion. It seems a bit strained to insist that
appointees don't represent those who appointed them, but I would like to
know more about this view.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 22:10:52 -0800

Mobile, brief, on-line.

> know more about this view.

The bylaws make this clear in Section 2, before describing the selection
processes:

The affairs of the Society shall be directed by the Board of Trustees (the
“Board”). The Board shall consist of not fewer than three (3) and not more
than fifteen (15) voting Trustees.

Trustees serve in the interest of the Internet Society as a whole. With the
exception of the President, all Trustees shall be elected or otherwise
appointed as follows:

Regards,

Ted

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 22:58:02 -0800

[with permission to forward]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: .org sale - bidding process
To: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>

Off list, because not an IETF issue.

On 18-Jan-20 17:33, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Ted Hardie <[email-masked] <mailto:
[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>     It's important to note that while different groups make appointments
to the Board, Internet Society Trustees do not represent specific
constituencies after elections.  Each Trustees serves the organization as a
whole.   Whatever expectations you have of the board, you should have them
of all of them, not simply those appointed by the IETF.

It isn't in the least strained; it's Serving on a Non-Profit Board 101. Of
course we're all human, and I worked for IBM when I was on the ISOC Board,
so I'm sure that this influenced my point of view. But IBM's point of view
in ISOC matters was conveyed by IBM's member of the ISOC Advisory Council,
which was not me.

In fact that is exactly why the Advisory Council was created - so that the
Organizational Members, who paid substantial dues, had a formal (but
*advisory*) role.

As far as I can see that is still the case:
https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/organization-members/omac/

At that time (before PIR existed), the organizational members were ISOC's
only source of income**, but even so they had no votes on the Board.

For the record, ISOC had no COI policy for Board members until sometime
during my tenure as Board Chair. I was a bit shocked that it had been
overlooked, but perhaps the world was a softer, kinder place then.

** At that time, too, individual members paid annual dues, but that cost
more to administer than it yielded, so it was a dead loss.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 08:42:42 -0800

OK, I followed the instructions and added internet-policy to my ISOC profile.   How do I see the discussion, get email, etc.?  I am not seeing anything, nor have received an email with instructions.

Bob

> On Jan 17, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Sergeant-at-Arms <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 17:33:00 +0000

ISOC hat on.  Copying the ietf list because people were apparently
relying on instructions I sent and the SAA referred to them.

> OK, I followed the instructions and added internet-policy to my ISOC profile.   How do I see the discussion, get email, etc.?  I am not seeing anything, nor have received an email with instructions.

If you have added that to your ISOC profile, then you will be
subscribed to the list and in due time will see the messages.  (One of
the unsatisfactory parts of this system is its terrible integration
with the actual mailing list manager, which means subscriptions are
processed in bulk via cron job.  Please don't mail me with your
outrage.  I know.)

Best regards,

A

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:17:35 -0800

> On Jan 18, 2020, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I am now getting email from the list, but as far as I can tell, I never got a “you are subscribed email”, nor any info on how to access the archive.

Bob

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:24:49 -0800

Me neither

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:18 AM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> OK, I followed the instructions and added internet-policy to my ISOC
> profile.   How do I see the discussion, get email, etc.?  I am not seeing
> anything, nor have received an email with instructions.
> >>
> >
> I am now getting email from the list, but as far as I can tell, I never
> got a “you are subscribed email”, nor any info on how to access the archive.
>
> Bob
>
>
>

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 20:52:41 +0100

Bob Hinden writes:

 > nor any info on how to access the archive.

The usual way: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/

	jaap

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:37:00 +1300

> The usual way: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/

You may need this too, to get your password:

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/options/internetpolicy

Oh, and some people (including me) have been seeing DNS issues with resolving elists.isoc.org. That is under investigation.

    Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 12:51:14 -0800

Thanks for the pointers, now I can see the archive.

Bob

> On Jan 18, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:49:24 -0800

> moved to the more specific forum identified.

Thank you for your suggestion to redirect this discussion to a
poorly-administrated, non-public mailing list.

Joining such a list would consent to a lack of transparency, so I won't do
so.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 09:34:53 -0500

On 1/17/20 10:33 PM, Sergeant-at-Arms wrote:

> And as per the IETF

I don't think RFC 3005 was ever intended to be used as an excuse to move 
a discussion out of the IETF or to suppress discussion within IETF.

Please reconsider.

Keith

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 07:03:16 -0800

> a discussion out of the IETF or to suppress discussion within IETF.

This seems like a surprising claim given that RFC 3005 explicitly lists as
inappropriate postings:

"Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or
technical concerns"

I'm not taking a position on whether this subject is "unrelated to IETF..."
but it seems pretty clear that RFC 3005 was in fact intended to allow for
discussion to be moved off of the *IETF list*

-Ekr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:08:26 -0500

On 1/19/20 10:03 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> This seems like a surprising claim given that RFC 3005 explicitly 
> lists as inappropriate postings:
>
> "Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, 
> activities, or technical concerns"
>
> I'm not taking a position on whether this subject is "unrelated to 
> IETF..." but it seems pretty clear that RFC 3005 was in fact intended 
> to allow for discussion to be moved off of the *IETF list*

I don't think this discussion is unrelated to IETF.   Technical 
decisions made in IETF have often taken into account participants' 
perceptions of trustworthiness and risk associated with roles played by 
other organizations (including both governments and NGOs).   This 
discussion within IETF seems to be useful background for future 
technical decisions.

So I suppose I could rephrase my statement as:

I don't think RFC 3005 was ever intended to be used as an excuse to move 
a discussion of relevance to IETF's work, out of the IETF, or to 
suppress discussion of topics relevant to IETF's work within IETF.

Keith

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:31:51 -0800

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:04 AM Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:

> IETF..." but it seems pretty clear that RFC 3005 was in fact intended to
> allow for discussion to be moved off of the *IETF list*
>

It's true that RFC 3005 intended to move discussion off-list. I wish there
were a better destination than ISOC's odd semi-private list. While it's
important to heed the SAA's warning to move this discussion off of this
list, I refuse to sign up for the ISOC list.

thanks,
Rob