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

121–130 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#121

Post by SamPatt »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #120
Waterluvian wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the death of the nerds-only Internet (a different kind of walled garden). There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet". There's certainly many problems with something this gargantuan, but I get very skeptical when people nostalgize and eulogize "the good old days" of anything. I'll add, I say this with empathy to you…

Is what they are sharing worth anything or is it just crap?

That is entirely subjective.

Re: Save .org

#122

Post by edoceo »

askafriend wrote: post #55
foxhop wrote: post #51

I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…

> stolen out from under us. Who is "us"? The internet is available to more people in more countries than ever before. There's more content on the internet than ever before. It's a part of every day life for nearly everyone in the world. That's what's happening to the internet. It's no longer a corner where quirky tinkerers were the only ones who could access it. And the promise of the internet was never to be just th…

I'm not sure about the internet but...one MUST share Lego with any and all who want to play.

Re: Save .org

#123

Post by everfree »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #92
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…

I liked Namecoin.

Ethereum Name Service is doing something similar on Ethereum.

Re: Save .org

#124

Post by ur-whale »

One more argument for taking out name-to-IP translation entirely out of "managing organizations" and moving it onto a fully decentralized blockchain.

Re: Save .org

#125

Post by devit »

How about getting the browser and OS makers together to use an alternate DNS system?

It only needs Google, Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft to agree and ICANN can be made irrelevant overnight.

Re: Save .org

#126

Post by yuz »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #15
jolmg wrote: post #10

Lots of distros are in .org aren't they? I see Arch, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Centos, OpenSuse, Raspbian, Damn Small Linux, Linux From Scratch, NixOS, Guix, OpenWRT, PfSense, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, Illumos, and probably lots, lots more. GNU is also on .org. Also languages, at least Python, Ruby, Haskell, Rust, Go, Clojure, Racket, Zsh, etc. .org seems to be the go-to TLD for open source projects.

".org" is almost the standard for all community projects, there will be huge impact if the management went wrong.

What will be the impact?

Re: Save .org

#127

Post by WilliamEdward »

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)

They can raise it as high as they want. Yes, it is bad.

Re: Save .org

#128

Post by ohashi »

cobookman wrote: post #118
jonah-archive wrote: post #8

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.)

Has the broader group thought about just buying their own tld? With a better governance model.

Would it matter? You're already locked into years, maybe decades, of brand building. You'd still need to redirect your old .org indefinitely.

.ORG should be properly managed and regulated, we shouldn't need to attempt to rebuild something because ICANN is corrupt and Internet Society is selling out non profits they promised to serve.

Re: Save .org

#129

Post by ohashi »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #48
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.

I saw this logic coming from a lot of people trying to push these changes through. They've been good so far, we should just trust them. They stick their heads in the sand and pretend we don't need rules because organizations, people, societies follow norms and that's enough. Until someone shits all over them, which is why we make rules in the first place. This whole nothing bad has happened yet, we shouldn't consider a bad outcome as a real possibility is ignorant and dangerous. The same people who if you look at ICANN mailing lists are still trying to play both sides, with whataboutism type arguments in an attempt to discredit people against .ORG being sold to a private equity company. I've dug into those people a bunch too, they're pretty much all connected to registry interests (https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2019/06/24/the-case-for-regula...)

Re: Save .org

#130

Post by ohashi »

jdkee wrote: post #3

Again why does ISOC feel they have to do this? Are they starved for funding? This sale directly contravenes several of the founding ideals of the Internet.

Why did it happen entirely behind closed doors? No way they got this deal together just after price caps were removed. Was this orchestrated beforehand? Domain registrations for Ethos Capital pre-date the change and timing coincides with proposed contract change to remove price caps.

What does Andrew Sullivan get for this move? Is Jon Nevett connected as well considering his ties to Donuts which is connected to Abry Partners which was managed by now Ethos Capital CEO?

So many questions, all this happening in shadows means we shouldn't give any benefit of the doubt.

Post reply on HN