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

251–260 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#251

Post by colejohnson66 »

jaclaz wrote: post #231
mod50ack wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far from the case. Your kids' school can't use a .edu domain because this is reserved for use by higher education bodies. If your kids were university students, they'd be using .edu, I guarantee it. Every reputable institution in the US uses .edu. (Outside the US, universities all follow various national systems.) Local government is a terrible example because these are approximately the worst organizations ever w…

>Have you ever heard of wikipedia.org? That's a pretty popular site on a .org domain. And no, not everybody assumes it's a .com. Sorry to say so, but that is not a particularly valid point, since https://www.wikipedia.com/ redirects to https://www.wikipedia.org/ and actually both are registered to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

But then when there’s a price hike on .org and Wikipedia has to give up their domain? There will be millions of broken links.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#252

Post by gorgoiler »

jopsen wrote: post #79
chopin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don’t need high base pricing to keep domain sharks away. Some throwaway alternatives that are less workable, but already seem fairer:

You could limit numbers of domains per entity, or increment the price for each new domain you buy.

If you try to buy a domain using a company with human directors it is 10x the price.

If you buy a domain with non-person owners (e.g. a shell company) then its 100x.

As an aside: I wish more things were taxed or priced higher based on the obscurity of the entity purchasing the item. It’s no cakewalk, but it still feels too easy for those with the resources to use company and legal structures to be able to act with a disproportionate lack of public scrutiny.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#253

Post by choiway »

This article just makes matters worse. Saying nothing would have been better. Not selling would have been the best.

This seriously falls in the "I didn't know you could do that category" for me.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#254

Post by dang »

jacobmalthouse7 wrote: post #248

SaveDotOrg.org is a great place to start following this issue. Lots of nonprofits organizing to defend .org.

I appreciate your concern for this issue, and to judge by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677 and the current thread it seems clear that most of HN agrees with your view. But it's against the rules of this site to use it primarily for political advocacy, which is probably why your comments are being flagged.

If you want to use HN in its intended spirit, you're welcome to! That's described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html is summed up by the phrase intellectual curiosity.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#255

Post by dang »

Mikhail_K wrote: post #144
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…

> This author is just outright naive. No, it's you who is being naive. The author is a sly fucker who adeptly spins his atrocious sell-out.

Please follow the site guidelines when posting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#256

Post by zrm »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #238
zrm wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property is not based on consensus. Even if millions of people think Jeff Bezos has too much money, with nowhere near consensus that he should have it, a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff. The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace confli…

However, a sufficiently large mob can easily take everything Bezos has, no matter what any court says. Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws. If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.

A thing doesn't exist by consensus just because a consensus against it could destroy it, because a consensus against pretty much anything could destroy it. What makes it exist by consensus is that a rough consensus in favor of it is required to sustain it.

This isn't true of things like property rights which could be sustained even with only minority support provided the minority had a sufficient military advantage.

It is true of DNS because consensus is inherently required to prevent it from fragmenting and ceasing to exist as a single global namespace.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#257

Post by [deleted] »

zrm wrote: post #226
wwweston wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s correct enough to say that DNS is an application of consensus, but rather than considering that a distinction vs property, one might consider asking themselves in what sense property itself isn’t consensus.

Property is not based on consensus. Even if millions of people think Jeff Bezos has too much money, with nowhere near consensus that he should have it, a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff. The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace confli…

[deleted]

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#258

Post by dewey »

I'm kind of amazed that this website (http://www.circleid.com) is not served via https and even the login is posted to a http endpoint. There's even a redirect from https to http.

You would think that "A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments" would be on top of that.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#259

Post by klarstrup »

zrm wrote: post #256
throwaway2048 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, a sufficiently large mob can easily take everything Bezos has, no matter what any court says. Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws. If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.

A thing doesn't exist by consensus just because a consensus against it could destroy it, because a consensus against pretty much anything could destroy it. What makes it exist by consensus is that a rough consensus in favor of it is required to sustain it. This isn't true of things like property rights which could be sustained even with only minority support provided the minority had a sufficient military advantage.…

It's true, property exists exclusively as something someone enforces with violence directly or indirectly.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#260

Post by retrac »

zrm wrote: post #247
VMG wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff the ruling will be enforced if there is a consensus that it is a just ruling

> the ruling will be enforced if there is a consensus that it is a just ruling The Supreme Court regularly makes rulings that are contrary to popular opinion. I see no evidence that the rulings are not being enforced despite the lack of consensus that they were just. They also regularly make rulings that align with the slight popular majority but the popular opinion is still about evenly split with no clear consensus…

Following unpopular laws is itself a consensus, one where abandoning the rule of law altogether is seen as more harmful than enforcing one unpopular ruling.
Post reply on HN