I don't understand this point though, since on a yearly basis it will be roughly the same for them:
"This funding is sufficient to provide the Internet Society with broadly equivalent annual earnings we currently receive from PIR. And through responsible, well managed investment, we believe this fund will provide a comparable level of funding to the Internet Society in perpetuity."
So unless they were worried that .org was not as stable as an endowment, it seems like it didn't help them at all anyway. And this is at the cost of their core mission?
Would you rather sit on a board that has to oversee an actual operation, or one that merely monitors an investment and spends lavishly on board meetings?
I mean, there's not really that much to oversee. ISOC board just has to review payments from PIR and maybe look over an audit report once in a while. PIR has a bit more to do, since they're overseeing the contractor that's running the registry; they may need to approve some expenses and plans and what not in addition to looking at audit reports once in a while, and every three to five years choose a new auditor and solicit bids and evaluate new contractors to run the registry (and then, probably, stick with the current one).
"This funding is sufficient to provide the Internet Society with broadly equivalent annual earnings we currently receive from PIR. And through responsible, well managed investment, we believe this fund will provide a comparable level of funding to the Internet Society in perpetuity."
So unless they were worried that .org was not as stable as an endowment, it seems like it didn't help them at all anyway. And this is at the cost of their core mission?