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

Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

circleid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#71

Post by yesimahuman »

This is so incredibly naive, and he made at least one decision based on flawed understanding of the 10yr price lock in: only _registrar’s_ need to be notified. It’s up to them to notify registrants. If they were looking at a significant price increase for .org or to lock in existing customers for 10 years, would they notify their registrants? I would think no!

It’s extra sad because they had a commercial vehicle with which to further their mission, which could have been a huge asset to the ecosystem, and instead of finding a way to have it be a source of sustainability, they threw it away for a one time cash infusion.

The rest of the post is just this guy trying to make himself feel better for an awful decision.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#72

Post by jdkee »

“ So if we take Ethos at their word, they should be just as good a steward for .org as the Internet Society has been, with robust ties to the community and an explicit public-benefit orientation.”

This man is a fool.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#74

Post by dpau »

simias wrote: post #52
Traster wrote: post #10

This author is just outright naive. >Even in the worst case, if Ethos considers dramatically increasing prices (which, to be clear, we do not expect them to do!), the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this, because it would take 10 years for the new high rat…

Yeah this is a frankly insane take for me. >For those who might be unfamiliar with the Internet Society, our mission is as follows: Nobody cares, that's utterly irrelevant as long as operating .org doesn't go against the Society's mission statement (which it clearly doesn't). By the author's own admission "While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our…

I also find it insulting that he belittles "leasing domain names" as beneath the mission of the Internet Society. Management of .org is actually extremely important to all of those who are involved in non-profits. So are we to assume that selling off .org to private equity for a quick cash grab is in line with their "mission"?

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#75

Post by ben509 »

ailideex wrote: post #53
Traster wrote: post #10

This author is just outright naive. >Even in the worst case, if Ethos considers dramatically increasing prices (which, to be clear, we do not expect them to do!), the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this, because it would take 10 years for the new high rat…

> > We're all trying to make the Internet a better place > No we're not. Don't be an idiot. Private equity companies are making money from investments they have no interest in making anything a better place and it's insulting to expect people to believe that. I'm kind of a conservative (read classical liberal) free market kind of guy - but this is a total shit-show IMO. I simply don't see anything that will prevent m…

> there is nothing I can see that incentivises good behavior.

Competition with all the other registries?

For the most cost sensitive domain owners, they typically have a presence on social media and contact with users via email. And, of course, they're usually discovered by search engine rather than domain. So the switching costs are quite low and the demand extremely elastic.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#76

Post by tekkk »

Traster wrote: post #10

This author is just outright naive. >Even in the worst case, if Ethos considers dramatically increasing prices (which, to be clear, we do not expect them to do!), the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this, because it would take 10 years for the new high rat…

Without explicit agreements/laws in place I have to sadly agree, and any natural monopoly will get abused at some point if owned by profit-seeking companies. That's just how it is. Doesn't matter if they are now sweet-talking you into doing this deal, the fact is that once they are in the position of power, they can do whatever they want. Of course there are some limits what the customers can take, but when their end-goal is maximizing profit extraction it's just dumb to assume it will be all butterflies and rainbows.

As an example if you even need any, the government of Finland decided to let government-majority owned electricity company (Fortum) to sell off their electricity distribution (Caruna) to some private investors. I don't know what the investors promised but quickly after the deal was made, the prices started to rise, the company structure was made that the company in Finland is paying ridiculously high interest rates (8.5%) on loans to some Dutch holding company, with an effective tax rate of couple %.

And even in general, why do they have to sell .org? I don't see any concrete benefits whatsoever for the normal user.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#77

Post by tehlike »

greatgib wrote: post #34

So much bullshit and so littke valid argument in this big post. But don't worry 'Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year' It can ONLY increase of 10% per year. Like if it is a low number...

And i dont think this is written on a contract, sounded like a mere intention.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#78

Post by pbhjpbhj »

simias wrote: post #52
Traster wrote: post #10

This author is just outright naive. >Even in the worst case, if Ethos considers dramatically increasing prices (which, to be clear, we do not expect them to do!), the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this, because it would take 10 years for the new high rat…

Yeah this is a frankly insane take for me. >For those who might be unfamiliar with the Internet Society, our mission is as follows: Nobody cares, that's utterly irrelevant as long as operating .org doesn't go against the Society's mission statement (which it clearly doesn't). By the author's own admission "While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our…

How did they get to being in a position to make that decision if they are naive about such things?

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#79

Post by jopsen »

chopin wrote: post #11
the_angry_angel wrote: post #9

The simplified timeline (as I understand it, willing to be corrected if I'm wrong); 1. PIR, or someone very close, seems to have lobbied to have price restriction of .org removed. My understanding is that PIR made the argument that they're a non-profit, they have no reason to raise pricing extortionately 2. This was passed, despite a large number of comments against the idea, Ethos was incorporated the following day…

10% per year is much, though. Even with this it's an unreasonable price hike.

For domain names it feels kind of double edged sword.

Higher prices cost you money, but keeps the domain sharks a little further away.

Keeping domain sharks away is nice.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#80

Post by cyborgx7 »

I never actually stopped to consider why they chose to sell of the TLD. I thought this was just a terrible organizational decision. Call me naive, but it didn't occur to me that it was about the cash infusion. I can't believe they want to jeopardize such an important part of the structure of the internet for a one time cash infusion. Absolutely disgusting.

>If we take Ethos at their word

What a child

Post reply on HN