I haven't read the 2019 rules, but if the letter is to be believed, the new rule creates: > The power to implement processes to suspend domain names based on a

I haven't read the 2019 rules, but if the letter is to be believed, the new rule creates: > The power to implement processes to suspend domain names based on accusations of “activity contrary to applicable law.” The .ORG registry should not implement such processes without understanding how state actors frequently target NGOs with allegations of illegal activity. Under the previous rules, the registry level could (more or less) resist being bullied into taking down a domain due to government pressure, though the government could implement a firewall and threaten other service providers. Now, though, a large country could say "we will block .org domains, or .org DNS resolutions, if you don't suspend an activist organization's domain globally," and there would then be a PROFIT MOTIVE to take down the domain GLOBALLY, as the value of the registrar would decrease if .org domains were blocked in that country. And this would be permitted by the 2019 rules. This gives censors tremendous leverage to implement censorship around the globe. I'm all for the role of private equity in helping companies to grow - while there are certainly firms that operate in bad faith, the PE industry overall doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets in the media. But IMO this sale should absolutely be disallowed from a humanitarian and international security perspective. The incentives are just too badly aligned.