Re: [CNSIG-Council] .ORG and CN

Hi Thiago and Panos, If you would like to draft a statement I believe we can move this into an action plan. I am against the PIR sale, but don't have time to enter the discussion. I can however support a statement and we can publish it if there is majority approval. On the other hand, we need to address our organizational pending tasks or we risk loosing the CNSIG altogether... please check my previous email on this matter. -- NicoEchániz On February 18, 2020 8:39:30 AM GMT-03:00, panayotis antoniadis <panayotis(a)nethood.org> wrote: Dear all, My personal opinion is that it is important as CNSIG to take a position for such a crucial matter. Many EU Chapters are doing so: https://www.isoc.ch/archives/3859 https://www.isoc.fr/vente-du-point-org/ https://www.isoc.cat/isoc/pir-org-internet-society-ethos-capital-isoc-cat-p… CNs is a really delicate concept, with the line between empowering communities and exploiting them very thin. And exactly because CNs are used as an excuse in this debate, I think it is a matter of credibility for CNSIG to act as representative for CNs all over the world to take a position based on values and not financial returns. But if the majority here thinks that "real politiks" is the best strategy, I understand and I would simply exclude myself from this group. The truth is that my stakes are much lower than most of the people here, since the only very small CN I helped to create, the network in Exarchia Athens offering access to refugee squats in the neighbourhood, is not existent any more (all squats have been evacuated by the police). So, I really understand that people are afraid to loose critical support for their projects and it is not a coincidence that it is mostly EU chapters that have publicly opposed the .ORG sale. But life is full of hard choices, and I have made mine even if in a more "comfortable" position than others (but not sure for how long): Dignity is more important, and more healthy, than dirty money :-) Best, Panos. On 07.12.19 20:40, novaes(a)riseup.net wrote: Hi Panos, all Great to hear from you! Personally, I think this decision is a disaster for the Internet in general, not only for the "reputation" of ISOC. If CNSIG would like to take a position, maybe it's time to do it now (even though it would mean not really much in the process in my opinion). I vote against selling a common good to Ethos Capital. My aim was to advise that ISOC is using CN as an excuse, and we should be aware of it. Besides the advice, as a SIG inside ISOC, real politiks could be useful for the development of CN; if not now, in the near future, CNSIG could play an important role in demanding programs and funds based on ISOC own public discourse, that's all. On 2019-12-07 15:28, panayotis antoniadis wrote: Hi all, Just to say that I am involved in this debate through the ISOC Switzerland Chapter, which has joined the "opposition" to this decision together with a few other chapters, especially because of the non-transparent way that this was made. My opinion is that independently from the decision making process, this is a bad development that can harm significantly the reputation of ISOC. I am not sure if it is still possible to stop it, but I don't feel like "building on it", at least not at this stage. For now I would ask if the CNSIG would be willing to take actually a position on the selling of .org to a private firm. Btw, the Swiss chapter recently received the news that we got a Beyond the Net Grant to run a platform (a monthly gathering in NetHood's new space in Zurich, http://langstrasse200.ch/) for "digital self-defense" in collaboration with different organizations including the pep.foundation, CCC Switzerland, the University of Zurich and more. Best, Panos. On 05.12.19 23:20, novaes(a)riseup.net wrote: Dear Colleagues, You're probably aware of the fact that ISOC sold .org to Ethos Capital (I was just reading the transcript): https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/INTERNETSOCIETY/9326b863-2164-…) What seems relevant for CNSIG is that one of the arguments used to justify the transaction was "connecting the unconnected": "Gonzalo Camarillo: So this actually allows us to fulfill the mission, which I think has been stated several times. It's very wide and when it comes, for example, with connecting the unconnected, we are talking about like 4 billion people that could be basically positively affected with this". (p.26) Maybe it would be opportune for the CNSIG to organize it better in order to demand funds/programs more specifically designed to CN goals (I take this moment to congratulate Sarantaporo!). What do you think? all best, Thiago ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Council mailing list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Council mailing list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Council mailing list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Council mailing list Council(a)lists.cnsig.info https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.