Live data from Hacker News

Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

circleid.com

121–130 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#121

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…

You forgot the part where Ethos is the same people who controlled PIR. It’s just a sleazy trick to take off the non profit veil, so they can start skimming the profits. Does anyone really believe the non profit PIR and ISOC couldn’t exist on their $90 million a year .org tithes?

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#123
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. That is not what is written in the Registry Agreement. "Registry Operator shall offer registrars the option to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price ... for periods of one (1) to ten (10) years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten (10) years."

In practice, this says the same thing. There's no reason for registrars not to let their customers lock in the low price for 10 years. There's stiff competition among registrars and their margins on domain name sales are razor thin. They make their money by selling various add-on services. It's better for them if registry prices are low because that encourages people to buy more domains, and thus more add-on services…

Their margins on new domain sales are thin, but the cost of changing domain names for a big owner of a prestigious .org domain could be huge. So jack up the renewal price to gouge existing domain owners, then drop the prices again to entice in new registrants.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#124
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

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#125
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.

I can't agree more.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#126
Please, Barnes' "reasoning" is not naiveté. Barnes and his colleagues understand exactly what they are doing. The Barnes article is evidence of nothing but contempt for its intended audience.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#127
post #57
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…

And extracting money from nonprofits, while an easy point to communicate, is just the tip of the iceberg - there's a horrible conflict of interest between the adoption of .org and the mission of .org now.

As I've written before, what happens if a large country says "we will block .org domains, or .org DNS resolutions, if you don't suspend an activist organization's domain globally?" Beforehand, the Internet Society could say "we don't believe that precedent is in the interest of the global community overall, and your threat is empty to us."

But now, there's both a profit motive AND an obligation to shareholders to take down the domain GLOBALLY, as the value of the company would decrease if .org domains were blocked to a large market. And, while I'm not a lawyer, I believe this decision would be permitted by the new 2019 rules. This gives censors tremendous leverage to spread censorship and chilling effects around the globe. DMCA takedowns will seem like child's play.

In the face of losing a large market opportunity, if even Google, with all its market power and all its public scrutiny, is willing to build things like Dragonfly, how can we take Ethos at its word?

I'm all for the role of private equity in helping companies to grow - while there are certainly firms that operate in bad faith, the PE industry overall doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets in the media. Of all the things that the private market can do to drive innovation, the existence of PE is critical. (Not every company should IPO or be gobbled up by a strategic.)

But IMO this sale should absolutely be disallowed from a humanitarian and international security perspective. The incentives are just too badly aligned.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#128
this is dystopian. is there anything we can do? i can’t think of anything... government won’t help, the org which we trusted to protect .org is the one screwing it, are we completely powerless?

if this battle is lost, what greedy move can they make next? how can we get ahead of that now?

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#129
post #114

IRS Form 13909 can be used to submit complaints about non-profit organizations to the IRS. Here are two pre-filled Form 13909's, one for ICANN and one for ISOC. Just print it out, add your personal information to both, and mail it to the address listed on the bottom of the form. https://yukari.sr.ht/dotorg-form-13909.pdf Alternatively, this file can be opened with LibreOffice Draw to make edits and prepare your docum…

I’m doing this! Both for PIR and ICANN. Please see my other comment on this thread. It is likely this “sale” could be considered illegal. Here is the information for ICANN which can be used for the above form as well: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy18-irs-tax-for... Remember that the founder of this PE firm was at ICANN, so this transaction is self-dealing on ICANN’s end as well.

Thanks for the ICANN info, I'll prepare a similar form for them. Do you have some resources I can use to summarize ICANN's questionable activities?

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#130
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.

Was business culture any different before?
Post reply on HN