Live data from Hacker News

Save .org

savedotorg.org

131–140 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#131

I've always been a bit confused by the relationships among government agencies, ICANN, IANA, the registry-operating entities, etc., and this site doesn't seem to explain why the CEO of the Internet Society is the right person to appeal to. Can anyone point to an explanation that summarizes the overall flow of authorities and obligations involved here?

Only entities who could stop this, ICANN (this is being pulled off by insiders including former ICANN CEO). Internet Society - they did this deal in the first place. And... who the hell knows? Could the US Government step in? Maybe? They stepped back during Obama admin, I'm not a lawyer but someone needs to step up and I've lost faith in both ICANN and Internet Society.

Re: Save .org

#132

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…

PIR is already a rent-seeking organization designed to fund Internet Society. They don't actually handle the registry at all. It's outsourced, they put it out to bid. If you look at financials, they are paying Yes, ICANN granted a monopoly to ISOC in the form of PIR, who have been allowed to increase prices consistently for years but at a capped rate. And they wanted more. As costs have gone down.

Then everyone at ICANN talks about not being a price regulator and free markets. Ignoring the fact it's a monopoly, and not one ISOC/PIR played any role in creating, it was a gift from ICANN. A perpetual, no bid, contract with ever increasing prices on a decreasing cost monopoly good.

Re: Save .org

#133
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…

> Similar to a kid that doesn't want to share their legos with the rest of the class.

You're being disingenuous and needlessly insulting.

We wanted to bring the freedom and egalitarianism of the early internet to everyone. Instead we got the jaded, corporate internet, but at least it's available to everyone. The GP is obviously mourning the quality, not the exclusivity.

Re: Save .org

#134

Time to have a collectively funded .ngo TLD?

Already owned by PIR (which runs .ORG and is being sold to Ethos Capital). Sorry, it's a group domain fucking. You're welcome - Ethos Capital, probably.

Re: Save .org

#135
post #7

How much does it actually cost to run a TLD? Even with the usual governmental bureaucracy overhead I bet it’s be a rounding error. Seems a good fit for something like the UN to take over.

No! I agree with you that it seems like it should be cheap but imagine the UN ran it. China would veto ".tw" as just one example of the many problems with government type entity in charge.

Now China can simply buy Ethos Capital and run it. It's way cheaper than the UN.

Re: Save .org

#136

Some further background on what happened. I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than corruption, plain and simple. 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 becaus…

Posting from a throwaway account.

I worked at one of the main TLDs for years and was on one of the ICANN boards and got to know the industry well.

It is well know amongst the domain name community that ICANN is a poorly run organization, whose directors have in recent years have used their position of leadership to lead decisions from which they are afterwards benefiting themselves economically, in many cases by rushing decisions such as in these case.

Peter Dengate Thrush was famous for pushing for the new domain extensions (.anything) as chief executive of ICANN and quitting a month later to become the CEO for a company that was the main bidder for a large number of extensions. Fadi Chehade is doing the same with .ORG by lifting the price cap on the prices of an established domain name and then gobbling up the company that sells those domains.

Sadly, ICANN has little oversight and since its kind of in the air and doesn’t report to anyone, the directors get away with what would be legally considered corruption in most of the world. The fact that the internet community and most Internet companies have never care about it makes doesn’t help, since a lot or times the “multistakeholder” model that they claim to use in reality doesn’t work.

Ultimately, this is why the DNS and domain name industry feels so shady in general and why for most companies getting a name on the internet is a tortuous process that feels very scammy, which is unfair and costs more than it probably should. But so far we don’t have any good alternatives to the current system.

Re: Save .org

#138
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…

Can we not do this sensationalist rhetoric on this forum?

If you feel like you got a bone yo pick with a current state of internet, post about a technology that addresses the problem so that people can become aware of it. And save the virtue signaling for reddit/facebook.

Re: Save .org

#139
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What will be the impact?

I run a tiny carpooling site (not for profit) snowpool.org . If they turned around and upped the fees to 3K a year or something, it would basically force me to shut the service down.

This is an incredibly awful move, I'm completely astounded that it was allowed to happen.

Re: Save .org

#140

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?

I can't even imagine being small-minded enough to think that only tech-savvy people have anything interesting to express (and I say that as someone who thinks pretty highly of internet culture prior to its mainstreaming)
Post reply on HN