21–30 of 355 posts
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
This gives the registry huge leverage over you. That 3$ that it actually costs them to run it can increase to whatever price they think you will be willing to pay and you can't not pay it...you would lose your spot and identity on the internet. Its not like with registrars, like godaddy, ghandi, bluehost, etc... that you can switch between in like 24 hrs.
IIRC .orgs were price controlled, so the price couldn't rise, but with this takeover, the price controls have gone away.
A couple additional things: EFF blog post on the topic: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/nonprofit-community-st... Here's the initial letter being sent from EFF & others to ICANN and the Internet Society: https://www.eff.org/document/coalition-letter-sale-public-in... (Disclaimer: I work for the Internet Archive, and we are one of the initial signatories to this letter.)
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_s...
Does any one have a source for the rationale behind the sale? I was surprised it was even considered.
It appears to be a corrupt inside job.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_s...
"Former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade personally registered the domain name currently used by Ethos Capital in May and it was registered as a limited company in the US state of Delaware on May 14. That date is significant because it is one day after ICANN indicated it was planning to approve the lifting of price caps through its public comment summary.
As such it appears that the plan to purchase the .org registry was predicated on the price caps going ahead and that those behind the deal had intricate knowledge of ICANN’s internal processes."
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
Serious question, did you even read the page? Specifically, the part where it makes specific complaints about the 2019 .org registry agreement, such as the ability to raise registration fees without ICANN approval?
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
> The power to implement processes to suspend domain names based on accusations of “activity contrary to applicable law.” The .ORG registry should not implement such processes without understanding how state actors frequently target NGOs with allegations of illegal activity.
Under the previous rules, the registry level could (more or less) resist being bullied into taking down a domain due to government pressure, though the government could implement a firewall and threaten other service providers. Now, though, a large country could say "we will block .org domains, or .org DNS resolutions, if you don't suspend an activist organization's domain globally," and there would then be a PROFIT MOTIVE to take down the domain GLOBALLY, as the value of the registrar would decrease if .org domains were blocked in that country. And this would be permitted by the 2019 rules. This gives censors tremendous leverage to implement censorship around the globe.
I'm all for the role of private equity in helping companies to grow - while there are certainly firms that operate in bad faith, the PE industry overall doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets in the media.
But IMO this sale should absolutely be disallowed from a humanitarian and international security perspective. The incentives are just too badly aligned.
How high is it ok for the PE to go on fees? Why? (Tone is to point out how arbitrary this all is, genuinely curious otherwise)