I certainly hope the new income stream is not 'roughly equivalent'. The PIR revenue has been good to date but there is no guarantee that it will remain so in the future. Unless I am missing something, the business point of the change was to diversify.
The other benefit to making the change in my view is to end the conflict of interest between specifying standards affecting the DNS and running a DNS registry.
While this change may have consequences for PIR name holders, their interests are not the ones that the ISOC trustees are primarily concerned with protecting.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:05 PM Andrew Sullivan <sullivan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I'm writing with my Internet Society President & CEO hat on. I've
heard some questions in the halls and so on about the proposed
transaction in respect of PIR, and I wanted to make something clear.
ISOC's recently announced PIR transaction does not affect its
long-standing commitment to the IETF. There is no negative change in
our support of and alignment with the IETF. In fact, ISOC and IETF
are totally aligned on the strategic importance of consensus-based
open Internet standards and the principles by which IETF operates --
and will continue to stand by IETF to ensure their continued success.
The only thing that changes here, for the Internet Society, is that we
switch one source of income for another, roughly equivalent income
stream. From the IETF's point of view this change should make no
difference.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
sullivan@xxxxxxxx
+1 416 731 1261
