Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save .org

savedotorg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#41

Post by tottenhm »

I think it's fair to see private equity as red-flag, and I feel ideologically aligned with the folks raising the alarm here. OTOH, the concerns raised include a lot of speculation (in the form of "could do bad" or "has the power to do bad"), and that's also a red-flag.

It's interesting to compare ISOC's blog (https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/11/the-internet-so...) and the followups like EFF's blog (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/nonprofit-community-st...) and SaveDotORG (https://savedotorg.org). They touch on a lot of similar themes of community and transparency - which, on paper, makes it sound like there's some meeting-ground.

As an outsider to the discussion, questions would be:

1. What are some specific problems facing the ".org" registration process for which capital/investment would be helpful? (Obviously, there's no perfect answer. But as an outsider, it looks like ".org" registration already works about as well as anywhere else, so one needs some examples to animate the problem.)

2. Would any of these folks care to improve their engagement/trust with each other? Talking more specifics about "Stewardship Council" and "Community Enablement Fund" might help. Or is some reason for bad blood?

3. What kind of track record does this private-equity shop have? Have they worked with other non-profit or socially-oriented endeavors? Maybe some founders/staff/customers can give some positive or negative testimonials?

Re: Save .org

#42

Post by brightball »

windexh8er wrote: post #16

I've been thinking a lot about the sheer downsides of DNS overall. We need something different. Something decentralized, encrypted, something not reliant on a protocol that hasn't kept pace with security and privacy and we need something verifiable that provides accountability. As others have said TLDs have become a racket. Only the priveleged and nation states have the authority to use the system as a funnel of ridi…

.onion?

Re: Save .org

#44

Post by techsupporter »

JonathonW wrote: post #32
tryptophan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It costs like 3$/year (or less probably) to register a domain name. But once you build your brand/website/etc you are tied to your domain name, which is tied to that registry. This gives the registry huge leverage over you. That 3$ 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.…

PIR currently charges registrars about $9/year per domain, with registrars allowed to mark that up however much they want without restrictions-- AFAIK neither the "wholesale" price nor the actual price from registrars is currently price controlled by ICANN. Regardless, I don't see how moving .org's operations from a non-profit (PIR) to a private equity firm benefits anyone, except the owners of said private equity fi…

> AFAIK neither the "wholesale" price nor the actual price from registrars is currently price controlled by ICANN.

Important point: just before this rigged bid went through, ICANN conveniently decided to remove the price cap for .org registry prices.

Re: Save .org

#45

Post by jimmaswell »

tottenhm wrote: post #41

I think it's fair to see private equity as red-flag, and I feel ideologically aligned with the folks raising the alarm here. OTOH, the concerns raised include a lot of speculation (in the form of "could do bad" or "has the power to do bad"), and that's also a red-flag. It's interesting to compare ISOC's blog ( https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/11/the-internet-so... ) and the followups like EFF's blog ( https:…

A downed power line or gas leak only "could" do bad, but that's not a reason to dismiss them.

Re: Save .org

#46

Post by dpau »

parhamn wrote: post #30

Is $10 the magic number for 'orgs'? Say the PE raised it to $20, how bad would that be? If it were $5 and doubled to $10 still as bad? Why is $10 the just amount? What about orgs that can't afford that? 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)

Given the history of private equity in hiking up drug prices, I'm guessing the answer to "what is the magic number" is whatever number generates the most profit, regardless of what is just or whether small organizations can afford it.

Re: Save .org

#47

Post by colordrops »

gregmac wrote: post #38
windexh8er wrote: post #16

I've been thinking a lot about the sheer downsides of DNS overall. We need something different. Something decentralized, encrypted, something not reliant on a protocol that hasn't kept pace with security and privacy and we need something verifiable that provides accountability. As others have said TLDs have become a racket. Only the priveleged and nation states have the authority to use the system as a funnel of ridi…

If you decentralize, you don't end up with something equivalent to "the internet" anymore -- you end up with several islands of things that (to varying degrees) resemble "the internet", and run on the same layer 4 fabric, but are largely isolated from one another. I think we actually experience a mild version of this today, where entities publish their all their Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat/Whatsapp/Linkedin e…

Islands already exist, with national firewalls, corporate networks, dark nets, etc. Decentralization of DNS would just take middlemen out of the picture. A dominant decentralized system would probably handle most requests if one were to ever get off the ground, making it equivalent to what we have now.

Re: Save .org

#48

Post by dogecoinbase »

tottenhm wrote: post #41

I think it's fair to see private equity as red-flag, and I feel ideologically aligned with the folks raising the alarm here. OTOH, the concerns raised include a lot of speculation (in the form of "could do bad" or "has the power to do bad"), and that's also a red-flag. It's interesting to compare ISOC's blog ( https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/11/the-internet-so... ) and the followups like EFF's blog ( https:…

the concerns raised include a lot of speculation (in the form of "could do bad" or "has the power to do bad"), and that's also a red-flag.

I'm not really sure how to address the idea that we shouldn't attempt to understand and interpret what things happening now might mean for the future.

Re: Save .org

#49

Post by behringer »

gowld wrote: post #35
windexh8er wrote: post #16

I've been thinking a lot about the sheer downsides of DNS overall. We need something different. Something decentralized, encrypted, something not reliant on a protocol that hasn't kept pace with security and privacy and we need something verifiable that provides accountability. As others have said TLDs have become a racket. Only the priveleged and nation states have the authority to use the system as a funnel of ridi…

We don't want DNS anymore, but we don't have a replacement. It's the same as Facebook->Diaspora, Twitter->Mastodon. The non-centralized versions are too hard to deploy to all the non-techies out there, despite being the "morally" correct architecture.

The only thing wrong with DNS is that we entrust it to a corrupt government. It's time another country step in and take control and replace ICANN.

Re: Save .org

#50

Post by behringer »

hliyan wrote: post #9

This feels unreal! How is this even happening? Domains are more like the airwaves than a commercial product. How can they do this??

Just wait until you see what they have planned for the airwaves next!
Post reply on HN