Internet Society Frontpage

Events Membership
About the Internet Standards
Publications  Public Policy
About ISOC Education

About the Internet Society 

Become an ISOC Member

Board of Trustees

2008 Board Elections

Candidate Forum

Q8: ISOC and PIR

PIR is organized as a supporting organization of ISOC, and is a separate company. They provide financial support to ISOC activities, and ISOC challenges them to be an exemplary registry, an example to the others. Do you see any business or ethics challenge for the global ISOC community? If so, how would you recommend that ISOC face them?

This entry was posted by the ISOC Elections Committee on Friday, March 14th, 2008 at 6:39 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 or Atom 1.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

2 Responses to “Q8: ISOC and PIR”

  1. Comment by: Alejandro   
    March 24th, 2008 at 1:38 am

    The relationship between ISOC and PIR is complex and will continue to evolve rapidly in the coming years. Much of what ISOC does wants by itself to be “very dot-org” and PIR of course markets dot-org as indicative of a true non-commercial, non-governmental, public-service spirit.

    ISOC indeed must insist in PIR acting like an exemplary registry, setting a high standard in the use of technology but much more too, setting a high standard in the ethical way it conducts business, a standard to which all other registries can be held.

    This may on numerous occasions conflict with the business objectives of a successful registry – exemplary business practice may both increase costs and cause PIR to forgo revenue opportunities that other gTLD and ccTLD registries do profit from. I weigh in on the side of ethics in such decisions.

    PIR has to provide an example not only of “standard” good business practice (fair hiring, environmental and other corporate social responsibility) but also provide an example of how a registry must behave with respect to the deliberate registration of domain names for phishing, activities like domain name tasting and kiting and related ones, etc. What PIR has done recently in the add-grace period is the kind of thing to do.

    The conflict points that have arisen recently concern the degree of ISOC branding that PIR has to use, and the competition within ISOC of the interests that may make PIR a competitor of ccTLDs, some of whose constituencies and managers are stalwart members and leaders of ISOC in their countries and globally. ISOC will have to continue having an arms’-length relationship with PIR operations and resolve matters of policy and ethics conflict wisely and convincingly – in some cases with careful but deep-cutting consultation among its members.

    Other aspects of this relationship pertain more properly with the ICANN-ISOC relationship and I’ll deal with them in that section.

    A separate conclusion here is that ISOC need understand the gTLD market independently of PIR in order to be able to project the effect of different measures on ISOC’s own funding and stability over longer periods of time. Proper expertise must be brought in from time to time – and heeded.

  2. Comment by: Ganesh   
    March 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    In developing countries the major business challenge is capacity building. For eg in India, the industry forums like Nasscom and CII are taking active interest to align industry. This alignment is of great interest for global community particularly of Internet community as majority of IT related workforce is now residing in developing countries.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.