Thanks Nico!

I volunteer to draft a statement, but it would be nice to know in
advance if there is a rough consensus regarding the spirit of such a
statement (against the sale as a whole or at least with the way it has
been managed) and the intention to make it public.

For me this discussion between us is more important than the statement
itself. Do we see this body (the CNSIG) as a means to attract funding
for projects doing the necessary "compromises", or as a means to defend
Internet values as a representative of CNs worldwide?

What I tried to express with my initial e-mail is that I really
understand both views (I have done also my compromises receiving funding
from EU projects) but personally, at this moment in my life, I am
interested only in the latter. It is not only that I am tired of
compromises but I really think (and feel) that they are not leading
anywhere and that they are damaging my mental health :-)

For the organizational tasks, my general tendency is to step in and
contribute, but this time I think that I am not the right person to take
a leading role since I don't represent any "real" CN.

In any case, it is for the survival of CNSIG, and if the idea of a more
politically active role is what people want, I could help.

Best,

Panos.

On 18.02.20 17:58, Nicolás Echániz wrote:
 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@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-point-of-view/

     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@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@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/9326b863-2164-403d-bacf-a8d25486b943/UploadedImages/Community_Webinar_PIR-Ethos-ISOC-transcript.pdf)
                 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@lists.cnsig.info
                 https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council 
             Council mailing list Council@lists.cnsig.info
             https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council 
         Council mailing list Council@lists.cnsig.info
         https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council 
     Council mailing list
     Council@lists.cnsig.info
     https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council

 -- 
 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. 
Council mailing list
Council@lists.cnsig.info
https://lists.cnsig.info/mailman/listinfo/council