[lacnog] .ORG?

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Nov 28, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Bill Woodcock <woody en pch.net> wrote:
> On 11/27/19 4:37 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>> Below are the figures of revenue from PIR from 2017, 2018 e 2019 budgets.
>> 
>> 2017 - USD 29.5 million
>> 2018 - USD 34.6 million
>> 2019 - USD 34.1 million
>> 
>> It remains difficult to understand the reasoning behind this deal.
> 
> El riesgo no es una disminución de los ingresos, sino un cese absoluto de los ingresos debido a una redelegación. Es una amenaza existencial que ha estado en ISOC durante los últimos diecisiete años y dirigió sus acciones. Al vender PIR y poner el dinero en inversiones, se elimina esa amenaza, y el ISOC podría operar hipotéticamente neutral e independientemente a partir de entonces. Un ISOC que no estuviera sujeto tanto a la política de los Estados Unidos como a la política de gTLD sería uno que podría funcionar mucho más en interés público y en interés de los usuarios de Internet.
> 
> Entonces, esa es la motivación, y creo que es bueno, y felicito a Andrew por trabajar para lograrlo.
> 
> Completamente separada de eso está la cuestión de cómo Fadi / Akram / ICANN / Donuts se acercó a su lado del trato, y las preocupaciones sobre el autotratamiento allí me parecen bastante reales.
> 
> Pero no sé si esto es suma cero; No sé si los problemas con este último significan que tenemos que renunciar al primero.

Jordi points out that I have far too much faith in Google Translate for the many Spanish words that are not in my limited vocabulary.  So, thank you Jordi, and my apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

Here’s an English version of the above:

"The risk is not a decrease in income, but an absolute cessation of income due to a redelegation. It is an existential threat that has hung over ISOC for the past seventeen years and directed its actions. By selling PIR and putting the money in an endowment, that threat is eliminated, and ISOC could hypothetically operate neutrally and independently thereafter. An ISOC that was not beholden to both United States governmental policy and gTLD policy would be one that could work much more in the public interest and in the interest of Internet users.

So, that's the motivation, and I think it's good, and I congratulate Andrew for working to achieve it.

Completely separate from that is the question of how Fadi / Akram / ICANN / Donuts approached their side of the deal, and the concerns about self-dealing there seem quite real to me.

But I don't think this is zero sum; I don't know if the problems with the latter mean that we have to give up the former.

                                -Bill

------------ próxima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20191128/1270bdc1/attachment.sig>