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

81–90 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#81

Post by Danieru »

wpietri wrote: post #57
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…

I think it's worse than naive. His two points are in impossible conflict. He wanted a pile of money for the Internet Society, enough to "secure that work's future". But the only way selling .org is worth a pile of money is if it gets extracted from nonprofits. With plenty of profits left over to feed the investors who put up the initial cash. If the Internet Society wanted to secure their future, they should have rai…

Sounds like what happens with drugs. The big name pharma companies avoid getting their names dirty by selling drugs to corps willing to bump prices past the absurd.

I sure hope the author got a kickback since his decision was not for the benefit of others. Only worse thing than corrupt board member, is a fool given authority.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#82

Post by C1sc0cat »

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…

The last time .org was up one of the bidders considered that Oxfam and redx (red cross ) where not valid users of .org

At the time I worked for one of the bidders Poptel, so I got to hear a lot of the inside stories

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#84

Post by C1sc0cat »

ben509 wrote: post #75
ailideex wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

A domain only has One registry

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#85

Post by nothrabannosir »

ben509 wrote: post #75
ailideex wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

How much would it cost society as a whole if WikiPedia switched away form .org? Think of all the printed links, now defunct. Think of the value of that domain to an occupant with less scruples, once left behind. The confused people who will find themselves on a WikiPedia-esque, ad and scam ridden copy.

And that’s just WikiPedia.

This is a shitshow of historic proportions for the internet as a whole. It will be remembered as a landmark in the ever metastasising cancer of monetisation that is suffocating the World Wide Web from within.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#86

Post by ttul »

wpietri wrote: post #57
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…

I think it's worse than naive. His two points are in impossible conflict. He wanted a pile of money for the Internet Society, enough to "secure that work's future". But the only way selling .org is worth a pile of money is if it gets extracted from nonprofits. With plenty of profits left over to feed the investors who put up the initial cash. If the Internet Society wanted to secure their future, they should have rai…

Why could the Internet Society not have been the one raising prices by 10% ad infinitum. Need capital? Borrow it and pledge .org as security. There’s basically unlimited funds available in this manner because the .org cashflow stream is as reliable as anything.

How naive indeed. What a shame.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#87

Post by jmull »

Wow, this is the kind of guy running the internet... he just sold out all the non-profits of the world. Jesus.

If you read carefully -- despite the title, he works hard to obscure it -- the "why" is he just wants the money.

His argument about why it's OK -- "Trust me, Ethos is totally trustworthy" -- is absurd and incoherent.

First of all, the point and purpose of private equity is to make money. To misconstrue the issue as distrust of private equity is backwards. I trust them 100% -- to fulfill their purpose to make money. They will extract money from this investment as effectively and efficiently as they can. Raising prices quickly is just one thing they might do, by the way. If they can find an opportunity to make a nice and quick profit that devastates .org they won't hesitate to take take it if it meets their current investment goals.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#88

Post by unreal37 »

souterrain wrote: post #48

> The Internet Society does great work protecting the Internet and bringing it to the people who need it most — work that is way more impactful than leasing domain names. This transaction secures that work's future and independence. Is “lease” the understanding others have regarding the relationship among a registrar and registrant? Isn’t the registrar intended to operate the supporting infrastructure and no more? Wh…

Because you rent domain names. You don't buy them and they are not your property.

So it's correct to say registrars lease domain names to registrants.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#89

Post by 55555 »

wpietri wrote: post #62
jawns wrote: post #23

> So if we take Ethos at their word It is unfortunate that we have a business culture where to take someone at their word is not only naive but so reckless that the duped gets most of the blame rather than the duper. And yet, here we are. This is the reality. Taking a private equity firm "at their word" is so foolish that it's hard to believe the author isn't being disingenuous.

Any lawyer in the world would have said, "No, Dickie, we don't just take companies at their word once the money changes hands. That's what contracts are for." At best this guy is incompetent, assuming his technical skills magically transfer to being business skills. But like you, I have a hard time thinking he believes any of this.

Yeah, the idea that you would take a private equity firm "at their word" and not require it in writing is laughable.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#90

Post by C1sc0cat »

A great pity that Poptels (Worker Coop) bid did not succeed over the internet society.

I worked for one of the other bidders for .org as did Ivan Pope.

Don't suppose Billg or some altruistic rich people want to fund us to get the Band back on the road :-)

Only Half Joking I am sure that Ivan And some of the Poptel team would be up for it

Post reply on HN