One of the big issues with this post is that it is trying to sell the terms of the deal. But the issue people have with it in the Internet Policy Community is

One of the big issues with this post is that it is trying to sell the terms of the deal. But the issue people have with it in the Internet Policy Community is not the terms, which we no nothing about. It is that the way it was done is a radical departure from how decisions are normally made. Usually you start by saying "I have a problem". In this case it would be "We don't want to run .ORG anymore." And then you engage the community in an open bottom-up consultative process to come up with the optimal solution. ISOC applied to run .ORG in 2002. They won a competition to run it against 10 other groups. Here is the original application they submitted to ICANN: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/ https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/ They said things like: "PIR will institute mechanisms for promoting the registry's operation in a manner that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and views of the non-commercial Internet user community." And: ".ORG is the home of non-commercial entities on the Internet" https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section8.html#c38E1 https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/sect... After running .ORG since 2002, and growing it to over 10 million domains under management under this promise, ISOC's Board suddenly and with no prior consultation, decided to privatize it. They took that decision in a private negotiation over less than 3 months. That decision making process is not how the Internet maintains a stable and secure infrastructure. It needs careful decision making to ensure reliable, stable, and resilient operations.