4 ms·

I get that something has been setup and that some serious heads are involved but with respect to ownership / control of the .org tld what is being proposed if a

I get that something has been setup and that some serious heads are involved but with respect to ownership / control of the .org tld what is being proposed if anything? Or is this simply a representative organisation to protect the interests of domain holders? Sorry if these are dumb questions.

macintux 7y ago
Not dumb at all. As best as I can interpret from the FAQ they’re simply looking for a transparent process around any ownership change, at least for now.
- brandur 7y ago
  Yep, it's not totally clear yet from their website. My personal hypothesis is that given an alternative recipient for the .org registry that's better in every respect except for the amount of money they're able to pour into the pockets of ICANN / Internet Society (ISOC), it'll be more difficult for these parties to pretend that the .org sale is about anything except graft. As we've see from previously, morally flexible members of these organizations (e.g. Richard Barnes [1]) have claimed that the sale of .org to Ethos is really in the interest of the public good! As details continue to come to light, these arguments are going to get continually more difficult to make. I'm not sure it's realistic the CCOR succeeds in gaining control of .org (although fingers crossed, it sounds like they'd be a far better than owner than ISOC or Ethos), but worst case, they'll force some additional transparency into the process. --- [1] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191127_why_i_voted_to_sell_org/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191127_why_i_voted_to_sell_o...
  - mikeliys 7y ago
    "morally flexible" - cute phrase :) I like it.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  They're essentially saying "we have a lot of firepower, you go through with this and we'll be a thorn in your side at court". Now options include going forward as planned, going forward but without doing anything else to raise anyone's ire, going forward with a commitment to governance that makes stakeholders more comfortable, backing down, and maybe other options too.
  - jtl999 7y ago
    Big if it happens. I was going to ask how much "teeth" do they actually have.
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      wikipedia.org, archive.org, mozilla.org, and whatever Packet Clearing House runs stop serving content in favor of a splashpage explaining that .org has sold to a criminal^Wour lawyers say we aren't allow to call then crimials organization, linking to their respective new non-.org domains, and urging everyone else to do likewise. A TLD like .org is only worth it's reputaion, and half of that could be made to evaporate overnight.
bwoodcock 7y ago
Hi. I’m one of the CCOR board members, and I’ll try to answer any questions I can. No such thing as a dumb question. Yes, the cooperative is of all .ORG registrants, and exists to protect our collective interests. There’s no way to have absolute unanimity among the better part of ten million individuals and organizations, but so far, we’ve heard from several tens of thousands of .ORG registrants, and only three (including ISOC and PIR) were in favor of having a non-competitive redelegation such as the proposed one from ISOC to Ethos. So, CCOR has three objectives, one short term, one mid-term, one long-term: In the short term, to stop this backdoor deal, which bypasses the established, multistakeholder, competitive process. In the mid-term, to get ICANN to launch the multistakeholder-administered, transparent, open competition to select the next .ORG delegate. In the long term, for the .ORG registrants ourselves to put forward the best possible proposal for operation of .ORG, in that competitive process. If the process is run fairly and we win, we control our own fate. If the process is run fairly and we lose, we still win, because it means that someone even better prepared to serve us than we are ourselves, will have won. But this is a very mainstream proposal... it’s the established process for .ORG, and the outcome we’re looking for, self-governance, is exactly how .EDU works. Educause is the non-profit association of universities that runs .EDU by and for the educational community.

macintux 7y ago

Not dumb at all. As best as I can interpret from the FAQ they’re simply looking for a transparent process around any ownership change, at least for now.

brandur 7y ago
Yep, it's not totally clear yet from their website. My personal hypothesis is that given an alternative recipient for the .org registry that's better in every respect except for the amount of money they're able to pour into the pockets of ICANN / Internet Society (ISOC), it'll be more difficult for these parties to pretend that the .org sale is about anything except graft. As we've see from previously, morally flexible members of these organizations (e.g. Richard Barnes [1]) have claimed that the sale of .org to Ethos is really in the interest of the public good! As details continue to come to light, these arguments are going to get continually more difficult to make. I'm not sure it's realistic the CCOR succeeds in gaining control of .org (although fingers crossed, it sounds like they'd be a far better than owner than ISOC or Ethos), but worst case, they'll force some additional transparency into the process. --- [1] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191127_why_i_voted_to_sell_org/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20191127_why_i_voted_to_sell_o...
- mikeliys 7y ago
  "morally flexible" - cute phrase :) I like it.
cryptonector 7y ago
They're essentially saying "we have a lot of firepower, you go through with this and we'll be a thorn in your side at court". Now options include going forward as planned, going forward but without doing anything else to raise anyone's ire, going forward with a commitment to governance that makes stakeholders more comfortable, backing down, and maybe other options too.
- jtl999 7y ago
  Big if it happens. I was going to ask how much "teeth" do they actually have.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    wikipedia.org, archive.org, mozilla.org, and whatever Packet Clearing House runs stop serving content in favor of a splashpage explaining that .org has sold to a criminal^Wour lawyers say we aren't allow to call then crimials organization, linking to their respective new non-.org domains, and urging everyone else to do likewise. A TLD like .org is only worth it's reputaion, and half of that could be made to evaporate overnight.

bwoodcock 7y ago

Hi. I’m one of the CCOR board members, and I’ll try to answer any questions I can. No such thing as a dumb question. Yes, the cooperative is of all .ORG registrants, and exists to protect our collective interests. There’s no way to have absolute unanimity among the better part of ten million individuals and organizations, but so far, we’ve heard from several tens of thousands of .ORG registrants, and only three (including ISOC and PIR) were in favor of having a non-competitive redelegation such as the proposed one from ISOC to Ethos. So, CCOR has three objectives, one short term, one mid-term, one long-term: In the short term, to stop this backdoor deal, which bypasses the established, multistakeholder, competitive process. In the mid-term, to get ICANN to launch the multistakeholder-administered, transparent, open competition to select the next .ORG delegate. In the long term, for the .ORG registrants ourselves to put forward the best possible proposal for operation of .ORG, in that competitive process. If the process is run fairly and we win, we control our own fate. If the process is run fairly and we lose, we still win, because it means that someone even better prepared to serve us than we are ourselves, will have won. But this is a very mainstream proposal... it’s the established process for .ORG, and the outcome we’re looking for, self-governance, is exactly how .EDU works. Educause is the non-profit association of universities that runs .EDU by and for the educational community.