In this interview episode, Alyssa and Mikayla talk (over Zoom) with Jacqueline Lipton, Professor of Law and Legal Writing at the University of Pittsburgh, and Rick Lane, the CEO of Iggy Ventures, LLC, about the potential sale of the .org domain, which was still pending approval at the time of this recording in late March. This would have heavily impacted nonprofits, which is discussed in this episode, and while the .org domain is no longer for sale, a dialogue to rebuild trust is still ongoing.
Alyssa: Hey there, AMT Lab listeners, and thank you for tuning in to the .org podcast episode with AMT Lab. In this episode, Mikayla and I talk about the sale of the .org domain names and the three parties involved in the sale: The Internet Society as the seller, Ethos Capital as the buyer, and ICANN as a multi-stakeholder in the process. When Mikayla and I recorded this episode in late March, approval from ICANN for the sale was still pending. However, on April 30, 2020, this changed, and ICANN officially rejected the .org sale to Ethos Capital. Even though the .org domains are no longer for sale, a dialogue to rebuild trust and protection of .org domains has taken place and could pick up again at any time. We’ll go into further detail on who exactly ICANN, Ethos Capital, and the Internet Society are, plus how a .org sale can heavily impact a nonprofit organization. Of course, we encourage you, the listeners, to stay up-to-date in case the conversation continues and .org domains gain a new owner. Thank you again, and enjoy the episode.
[Introductory music, fades out]
Alyssa: Hello, AMT Lab listeners, and welcome to another interview episode brought to you by the Arts Management and Technology Lab. My name is Alyssa, and I'm the Podcast Producer. In this episode, I, along with social media and marketing manager, Mikayla Dimick, sit down with Jacqueline Lipton, Professor at Law at the University of Pittsburgh, and Rick Lane, the CEO of Iggy Ventures, LLC. We will discuss the recent purchase of the .org domain name and the level at which this will affect nonprofits. Please note that we are recording this episode on March 27, 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. We are practicing social distancing by recording over Zoom and Zencaster. Therefore, you may hear differences in the audio quality, particularly as we switch from speaker to speaker. We hope you enjoy this episode brought to you by AMT Lab. Alright, so I'm here today with Mikayla who is co-hosting with me today. We are Zooming in and Zencaster-ing in, calling from Pittsburgh to Cleveland with Jacqui Lipton and Maryland with Rick lane. So, could you take a moment to all introduce yourselves to our listeners, starting with Mikayla?
Mikayla: Hello, everybody. My name is Mikayla Dimick, and I am a Master of Entertainment Management student at CMU and am currently the Social Media and Marketing Manager for AMT Lab.
Alyssa: Thank you. And for you, Jacqui?
Jacqui: Hi, I'm Jacqui Lipton. I'm a Professor of Law and Legal Writing at the University of Pittsburgh, and in another life, I wrote a doctorate on internet domain names at the University of Cambridge in the UK.
Alyssa: Thank you. And for you, Rick?
Rick: Hi. My name is Rick Lane. I'm the CEO and founder of Iggy Ventures. My background is that for the past 30 years, I've been working on technology related policies, and for 15 years I was a Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for Vox.
Alyssa: Alright, thank you very much, everyone. So, today's topic is going to be on the sale of the .org domain name registry. This is a topic that's been trending since the beginning of November 2019 and has been a topic of concern for nonprofits who own a website with the .org domain name. A little bit of background information for our listeners: so, domain names are website names such as Facebook.com, Cmu.edu, and Amt-lab.org. A domain name at the .org level is an attractive option for nonprofits to host a website on, particularly at the price a nonprofit can get the name at while maintaining a level of credibility. A .org domain name currently costs under $10 a year. The .org domain names are hosted in the public interest registry, or the PIR. This registry is owned by the Internet Society, or ISOC. The Internet Society is observed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a nonprofit that shares the wellbeing of the internet by serving as a multi stakeholder for database organizations such as the Internet Society.
Mikayla: In November of 2019, the Internet Society announced it was planning to sell the PIR, along with control of all the .org domain names for $1.1 billion to a newly formed private company known as Ethos Capital. According to a Reuters article by Joseph Menn, the Internet Society was quoted in saying that the focus of the sale is not about the domain names, but rather to make the internet available for those who don't have it and to defend the internet against those who would attack it. Andrew Allemann of DomainNameWire.com mentions that the deal solidifies the Internet Society’s future by trading in profit for an endowment. In addition, the article cites government censorship as a potential concern that is partially solved by the purchase of the domain names. However, many have spoken out against the sale citing a fear that the private company, Ethos Capital, would spike the price of the .org domain name once they gain control over it. They also fear that Ethos Capital will sell out to foreign companies for profit, who would therefore gain a portion of control over the .org domain names, as well. Ethos Capital has spoken with the reassurance that they would not raise prices of the .org domain names by more than 10% per year. Ethos Capital has also launched a website called TheStewardshipCouncil.org. According to this website, The Stewardship Council is an independent body comprised of .org community representatives that are being created to ensure and support PIR’s commitments to the .org community.
Alyssa: Before the sale can take place, it must be approved by ICANN. ICANN is currently waiting for the Internet Society to answer a set of 18 questions regarding the sale and the Society’s relationship with Ethos Capital, all with the highest transparency possible.
Mikayla: So, moving into the questions portion of this broadcast, what other or more specific ways will this sale affect managers within a nonprofit organization?
Rick: I kind of think we have to start from the beginning of how ISOC was able to attain the .org and the PIR set up. ISOC was given access to it for free, and they never paid a penny for it. And they were given it as a way to help fund the IETF [Internet Engineering Task Force], which is the Internet Technology Fund? There are so many acronyms in the ICANN world that you forget what the actual names mean. But anyhow, so, starting from the beginning, you look at Verisign, because it comes from Verisign, when they became the .com monopoly. They had to spin off certain things, and part of that was that they spun off .org, gave it to ISOC to fund the operations of the IETF and some of the operations of ISOC, and then, fast forward to now, you have all of a sudden a sale of a billion dollars to a nonprofit entity, I mean to a for profit entity, called Ethos. The problem that this all translates to is trust. Because the lead—an individual, one of the lead individuals on the sale of .org—is the former CEO of ICANN. And I think that's where the mistrust starts coming in. One other additional point is that the sale was announced three weeks after ICANN had lifted the entire caps for the sale of .org. So you have three weeks, you have 99% of the people saying that the .org price caps should not be lifted; ICANN make such a determination that they should be lifted; three weeks after that, you have a $1.1 to $1.3 billion sale of .org to a for profit hedge fund that has as one of its partners and players, the former CEO of ICANN. It just doesn't sit well. That's where the problems come: it's lack of trust. And so, Ethos can do everything they want to do; say they're going to promise all these different things, but the reality is, how are they going to and who's going to enforce those contracts? ICANN doesn't even currently enforce those contracts against Verisign, and some of the registrar's and registries and the whole domain name abuse issues. And the accuracy of the who.is, so if they're not enforcing their contracts now with current entities, how are they going to enforce these contract and what are the rules going to be? So it's very complicated before you even get to the harm, potentially for the .orgs themselves with basically an unlimited ability of a company to have to pay back, you know, the $300 million loan is all going to be on the backs of the .org, and then they're also trying to get rid of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others, some of the rights protection mechanisms that allow trademark owners to protect their trademarks without huge expenses, and that's another component. So there's a lot of complexity. And that's why the California State AG is looking into this as well.
Jacqui: And I mean, I think that's a much more comprehensive answer than I could have given because I look at legal issues that arise in domain spaces, but not so much in the, you know, buying and selling, but more in the sort of trademarking area and the free speech area. One thing that fascinates lawyers about the whole internet domain name area is that it's a really unique animal, the domain name system, legally speaking, because it's not created through an international treaty, like legal intellectual property rights typically are. It's all through contract, as Rick was saying, which means that any sort of regulation you create is really not something that a government typically enforces, as a regular law. It's all contractual relationships, which means it's up to the people contracting, whether they enforce the contract, what the terms are and that kind of thing, and obviously who owns what domain names and how much they cost, do impact people using domain names on the internet. But there's no kind of real government or sovereign central regulation of the system.
Alyssa: So you know, it's fascinating because you talk a lot about contracting and trademarks within here. But Ricky you also brought up the interesting point that no matter how much like Ethos could necessarily promise, like, there's still going to be that little bit of mistrust. So, I'm going to skip around in my questions here, and for this question, at the moment, are there any steps that maybe Ethos, or ICANN, or the Internet Society could be taking to help maintain and build the trust that they might need right now, like for the sale to continue taking place?
Rick: I don't think so. I think that the way it was rolled out, there's so much mistrust to begin with among the ICANN community across the board. I really don't think there is anything that they can do at this point to rebuild that trust, especially with the current deal that's on the table. There's just too much unknowns, like, we don't even know who really Ethos is. They basically had taken the names out of who is behind the Ethos dollars, so we don't know, you know, is it money coming from, you know, the Russian government? The Chinese government? What private sector entity—is it Verisign putting money into this, you know, and trying to control it and getting it back to have .net, .org, and .com? What were the terms of the bank loans, right? $300 million. And what impact does that have on the contractual obligations that ICANN and Ethos sign? There could be provisions in those contracts that say, you know, if we can't pay our loans back, everything's off the table and we can do unlimited price increases to make the next payment. There's so many unknowns in this contractual relationship with really no enforcement. As Jacqui was saying, the only enforcement is between ICANN and Ethos, right? That's it. Who’s the party that has standing, besides those two? It’s getting back to the point I made earlier: ICANN already ignores contractual obligations in their contracts. And I have personally said, “well, you should do something and enforce those,” and they don't enforce them. I have nothing I can do about it, right? Because it's the contracted parties, and that's just a big problem. I just think this is a real big issue that cannot be resolved in the current environment between Ethos and ICANN and the internet community.
Mikayla: So you're mostly concerned about the transparency and how accountability is going to be handled with this deal?
Rick: Absolutely. Absolutely. From trademarks, to the harm…one of the things is, just because you have a .org, gTLD @ your name—Rick.org—doesn’t mean that Rick.org is a good entity. I could be causing harm, so what are the ramifications of that? Are they going to take these down? You know, we already see this massive use of .com for child exploitation and Verisign is doing nothing to stop that as the registrar. What are the responsibilities going to be of Ethos and doing something, just again, because there's a lot of good orgs out there—the redcross.org, you go down the list—but .org’s can also create and make crimes. I mean, look what happened with FIFA, right? The bribery scandal. Or the International Olympic Committee .org, right? I mean, these are all .org’s. And just because it’s .org doesn't mean it can't do powerful things.
Jacqui: Yeah, I mean, I suppose your initial question, Alyssa, presupposed that someone is responsible or accountable. You said something along the lines of the necessary trust that needs to be rebuilt. I'm not sure when you're talking about a system that has government participation at some level involved with what ICANN does, but it's not a government-run system. You don't have legally built-in accountability, and that's kind of just the legal adjunct to what Rick was saying. In terms of bad things done in .com and .org spaces, one can always argue, “Well, that’s not the registering authority’s job, you know, if someone is using a domain name to infringe a trademark or to run a racketeering outfit; that's for the relevant government to deal with.” And I think there is some truth to that, because, you know, if registering authorities had to police all the bad stuff that happens under a particular gTLD, you know, they couldn't do it. But I guess the other side of that is just the cost, right? So what the registries do control is the cost, which is where you started, which is what you are concerned with, with small business. So, if even if you put to one side concerns about all these bad things that might happen under the .org name and who's going to be policing it, there's this very, very big question about cost, because with .com names (with all of the…if you want to call it cybersquatting, if you want to call it domain name speculating, depending on what kind of feeling you want to bring to the debate) we very quickly had a system that got out of hand in terms of how much stuff costs. And then that opens up ICANN to say, “Well, you know, the domain space, the .com space is overcrowded, we need more gTLD’s,” then they roll out more detailed things, and then you have the same thing playing out there. So, what you have now is the opportunity for the same thing to play out in .org if it’s effectively privatized and price caps are taken off. And, you know, where my mind goes as a sort of a lawyer person is, well, you know, I hope that we're not relying on domain name registering authorities to police criminal conduct. If it uses domain names, I would kind of like to know what they're going to be doing about regulating prices, because that is the thing that they definitely can control.
Rick: Can I just add to that? Because, you know, first of all, there is no government role, really, in ICANN. There's a government advisory committee, and they can only advise there; they don't have any more sway, and that has its pluses and minuses in this regard. But the difference, though, between a nonprofit running .org and a for-profit—and I'm all for for-profits; I'm a former staffer from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as the first Director of E-commerce, Internet Technology Policy, and Congressional Affairs, so I love the private sector doing certain things—but the difference is the profit. And so Ethos is going to take different steps to ensure profitability to pay back everything. This isn't, again, a nonprofit. This is a for-profit venture, so decisions that are made within a for-profit venture are different than a nonprofit. And that's critical to understand. Getting back to working on the trademark issues, or the DNS abuse issues, which are heavily discussed at the ICANN meetings all the time, there's an economic incentive for the for-profit to sell as many .org’s as possible no matter why, because they get paid for every .org and they're trying to make profits where a nonprofit may take more certain ensuring that the .org is used in a way that is consistent with a nonprofit motive. So, these are the questions that are the unknowns that have to be addressed. And when you hand it over to a for-profit entity, then, you know, questions become different, answers are different, and getting back to the DNS abuse issue: it really comes down to the goal of the for-profits to get as many .org’s as possible. Now, they don't want to hurt the brand—the brand itself of .org. They will want to mitigate steps, but how you mitigate those tend to be looked at differently.
Mikayla: Do either of you feel that there are going to be other changes to domain names that we should watch out for, whether inside the .org domain name or within others?
Jacqui: I mean, I'm concerned about money, primarily. I've actually had the experience: I have a small consulting business and I, you know, obviously couldn't get the .com name even though no one had the trademark and it's a word that I made up. I would have had to have fight with a cyber pirate to get the .com name, so I have the .org name because I could get that one. I think it's going to be harder for small business in all domains spaces. I think what happens and what we're seeing happen, and have been for quite some time, with ICANN is just more privatization, more cost. On the one hand, they talk about, you know, making more domain names available and making the system more accessible. And I'm not sure that that's what's translating into practice, and I'm not sure that I’m not a little bit cynical about sort of what's really going on, because a lot of this is driven by people paying a lot of money in a somewhat wasteful way. On the one hand, you can say, “Hey, this is all great, you know, if someone has a great idea to make a lot of money out of a domain name, great.” But on the other hand, one great advantage of the internet and the domain name system is allowing more communication, more small business, more people getting viewpoints across any, you know. I mean, you can argue that domain names are less relevant than ever because of sophisticated search engines. So, you know, it all for me goes back to cost and accessibility.
Rick: So, I think, obviously, there's the whole issue of the .com price increase: the 7% that was allowed by NTIA in the contract between them and Verisign. Now, Verisign has publicly stated that they are going to waive that 7% this year because of the coronavirus issue. I don't know if they were going to get it or not, that's still subject to debate, so it’s somewhat pre-emptive on their part, because if you look at the number of filings that took place against the increase, it's very similar to the .org. And it also—with everything going on with ICANN, and ISOC, and Verisign, and Ethos—they’re much more aware of the implications of going against everybody, and they know there should be this price increase. I also think about the new gTLD’s coming out; I've been around for every round of new gTLD’s. And for all the benefits that they promised, you see more negatives than you do positives. One being the whole issue of hijacking trademarks. So if I have RickLane.com and someone comes out with, you know, 20 new gTLD’s and they all do RickLane dot whatever, that becomes a huge problem. Because I have to defend my trademark across more and more domains that are out there. But that's what the rights protection mechanisms are supposed to be about, is to help stop some of that, so I don't have to wait till someone actually takes my name and then fight them through the through the UDRP process, which is very expensive, and time consuming, and after the fact, and you're waiting for a decision to be made. So there's mechanisms that we had tried to put in place to protect trademark owners and others, but the reality is, no matter how many new gTLD’s are out there…I would just ask your folks, “name 20 of them.” There were, like, 2000 of them that were done, I think, in the last round. So, I always just say, “name 20, name 10.” And they can't be country codes like .tv, because those are outside the process. Most people don’t realize that .tv is a country code. So, it's a problem, because the brand really is .net, .com, .org, and maybe .biz a little bit? And .tv. Because Tuvalu is the country that does .tv. But that's really it for what most people use, so the monopoly power…think about this: when Verisign was announced, they got 7% increase allowed by NTIA. Their stock value went up a billion dollars. Now think about what the value of .org is with a basically unlimited price. Just put it in perspective of what the value is. Is it a billion more than the billion that they already spent, so they're starting from zero? And then they also claim that they're going to put a 10% cap on it. What they’ve saved—unless they’ve changed it—it used to say an average of 10% a year. So if I do 100% tomorrow, and then I do nothing for 10 years, then my average is—I’m not a math major, obviously—but I think it's 10% a year, so how does that work? And who's going to enforce that? And, again, these numbers can be changed at any time based on circumstances. So, I think, if anything's going to change, there's been a lot of capture of ICANN by very large entities, including the Internet Society, including Google, Verisign. I call them the internet plumbing monopolies: no one pays any attention to them, but what we're seeing is starting to stink. And it's like plumbing: now it's time to just maybe look at it to see why it's starting to smell a little bit. And I think this .org is a perfect example of that.
Mikayla: So, to kind of just cap things off: how would you suggest an advocate get involved or learn more information in the terms of the.org sale?
Rick: I’m going to say two things: One, about the Electronic Frontier Foundation's involvement in this. Again, I've had my differences with the EFF for issues especially around intellectual property protection, so my concern with what EFF is, and I think they've gotten it half right in raising concerns about it, but they're also using it as a mechanism to go after the rights protection mechanisms and trademark protections. If you read the last points, especially in the letter that was sent by Senator Wyden along with a couple other members of the Senate, they talk about the rights protection mechanisms and the need to get rid of those that hinder free speech. And I think they're using this as an opportunity to get something that they usually can’t get through the ICANN process. Again, I'm very protective of trademarks and intellectual property, and the who.is issue, which is another conversation we should have at some point, because that's also part of this. But to get involved in this whole issue, and you have a state Attorney General from California asking serious questions, you have members of Congress that I just mentioned asking questions. But that's the problem with ICANN: that most people are really powerless. There was already an outrage; first on the price increase, second on this transaction, and yet, it's still kind of moving along. And the fundamental question that we have to ask ourselves is: because there's so much money at stake—ICANN, when I was around in the early days when ICANN was created and involved in a lot of these issues, since forever, it seems, 20 plus years. But ICANN was not designed to handle this. They're not designed to handle the who.is issue. They're not designed to handle Verisign as a nonprofit. They weren't designed to handle these issues of jurisdiction. They were designed to be basically what the original internet governance was, which is the technical aspects of the Internet. The problem is that policies also impact the technologies and the technology standards impact policies, and ICANN is just not designed to handle that. That's what governments are for, as much as I fought to ensure that the UN did not take over the ICANN functionality of the standard settings for the internet. They're out of their depth in these issues, and there's really not much we can do as individuals. We've all raised our hands and said there's a problem. And now it's up to a board to make a decision on a billion dollar transaction that's going have a huge impact on the .org world that we know today. They've done this in the .com and we’ve seen in across the board. It’s a very interesting time for the multi-stakeholder process, because, again, it was not built to handle these types of issues.
Jacqui: Yeah, I have to jump in as the nerdy law professor here. I'm not adding much that's, you know, action points or anything for anyone, but that is what fascinates people who study international law, international intellectual property: the governance issues. Because Rick is absolutely right that ICANN has been thrust into a role that it was not set up for. And there's such pros and cons, because, obviously, there are huge downsides to trying to get an international government agreement on any of this, like: how will trademarks be protected on the internet? Well, you can imagine what that might look like in the TRIPS treaty; it would look like a big mess. But then, what's the alternative? Someone's got to run the system technologically. Someone's got to set up the rules for how you register stuff. From there, this is a system that has always crossed national borders. We've never seen anything quite like this before, because there are central pressure points, but they're not government controlled. I've written some papers with a co-writer who now actually works for ICANN and can no longer write papers about it because she works there. It’s just, the governance issues. I mean, yes, when they engage WIPO and say, “WIPO, get calls for comments on how the UDRP is going to work fine,” you can type in your little comment. But this is a corporate sale, you know? If this was just happening in a country with a corporate takeover of another company or a corporate sale, we wouldn’t all get asked what we thought about it. Typically, it's a private thing.
Rick: That’s what people misunderstand, that when you do technical standards, they're voluntary, right? No one has to use the Internet Protocol, no one has to use gTLD. No one has to do any of this. If you want to partake in the internet, then you follow the protocols. But what happens is, then you have the policies around it and the policies do stop at borders. This idea that the internet is borderless…I always tell people, “You know what’s borderless? Earth.” If you’re in space and you look at Earth, there are no borders. The internet's the same way, that borders are created and they have to be respected. This idea that ICANN is trying to do this…we see this in the GDPR and who.is. It's outside their scope. They cannot fix this problem. That's why it's going to take years. So, this is another example of that, where there's really no governance in the sense of policies. It's all basically technical standards. And I have heard that, really, ICANN has no power to stop this deal, because the only power they have, from what I've been told, is if the entity buying doesn't have the technical capabilities to implement the .org registry. And I'm guaranteeing you that Ethos has the technical capabilities, because you're buying PIR, and therefore, they have the technical capabilities. So I don't know how ICANN’s actually go to stop this. But the question may be on legal stuff, for some reason, but I don't think they have it within their ability to stop this deal from going forward. And they may put some dressing on it, window dressing. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.
Alyssa: Absolutely. So, we talked a lot about the trademark, the privacy, the policy, a lot of the concerns behind the sale, and from what I've been seeing in the research that I conducted, the sale will eventually take place and be approved and these changes will indefinitely happen. How can nonprofit organizations put themselves in the best position to deal with some of their changes and protect their trademark or privacy, potentially, and some of the price changes among all the other changes that will take once the sale does occur?
Jacqui: Yeah, I guess it's hard to know if you're a .org domain holder as I am. I guess we'll find out what changes there are to the contract, because most of us have contracts on a particular term basis that they can close, contracts can be changed. If you don't have a .org name, I think it's going to be a lot harder to get one if this is all privatized, you know? As I say: I have a .org name because I couldn't get the .com name. Well, if .org goes in the same direction as .com, it'll probably be harder to get the names. I'm not sure that privacy would be implicated, because I assume very similar systems would be in place or are in place now to use proxy registrations and stuff like that. What people misunderstand when I talk to people about the legal aspect of domain name if you're a business holder or domain name holder is people think it's property that you own and that, once you buy it, from the registrar, you own it. That's not true. It's a contractual license; you have a contractual license for a term of years with whoever you've registered with. And those terms can change. So you're effectively stuck with…I haven't looked at what my contract is, but I'm sure it doesn't guarantee that I can pay $10 a year for the rest of my life. So I think what will happen is, .org will become very much like .com, and we’ll see scarcity and we'll see people who have not yet secured a .org name. It's going to be harder to get them.
Rick: Yeah, I agree. Until you see the final contract in the deal, you can only guess at what steps need to be taken by those who own .org domains…who have licensed the .org domain, correct. Because people do misunderstand that. But there's also going to be questions about this whole process and the investigations that may take place by other state AG’s in the US and around the world, on Capitol Hill—once they kind of get their focus back on some other issues that are not coronavirus related, even though some of these issues actually are, because of the scams that are happening on .com, .net, .org taking place today and the inability to find out who's behind those domains because of the darkness of the who.is database, because the GDPR. A lot of those things are going to start coming to light. So we just don't know what's going to happen in this space. And the other thing is, people are going to start looking at ISOC. ISOC’s sort of been on the sidelines on this. So we focused on ICANN and we have focused on Ethos, but ISOC? The Internet Society? What is their role? Are people making money off of this, right? What's the board doing? What's the cut? What are the dollars that are going in—there’s a billion dollars going into the Internet Society. Are they fulfilling their obligations as a 501(c)3 in this sale? What are the tax ramifications? Do they pay taxes on this? Because it is a sale of an asset—even though it's a nonprofit, you have a for-profit sale—you have massive tax implications. How are they shielding those taxes? What are they doing? There's so many questions to this deal from a legal standpoint, from an attorney general standpoint, from congressional investigation standpoint, to a Department of Justice standpoint. So, this may be dragged on until the deal may happen, but there may be things where it gets unwound. There's just a lot of unknowns, and it's going be very fascinating to see how this all plays out.
Alyssa: It's going to be interesting to see how exactly this deal will unwind and how it will affect the final sale, and how exactly it will affect everybody once the time comes. So, we'll all have to keep an eye on the news and see exactly how that takes place. But, in the meantime, thank you so much for joining us today. It means a lot to us to take the time out of your day. I know that things have been very busy with the virus currently, but we appreciate you guys being on here to talk to us about this topic.
Rick: Thank you for having me.
Jacqui: Thank you for having us. Our pleasure.
Alyssa: Thanks for listening to the Arts Management and Technology Lab podcast series. You can read more on the intersection between the arts and technology at www.amt-lab.org, or you can listen to more interviews and discussions in our podcast series on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play or Stitcher. Thank you for joining us.
[Outro music fades in and plays]