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

311–316 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#311

Post by ohashi »

type0 wrote: post #274
cartoonworld wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you said, according to the 2018 tax return revenues from PIR running .org resulted in $48,000,000.00 in cash grants handed over to the Internet Society. How much is the sale worth? That $48M Grant was worth more than Internet Society's total revenue in 2016 according to wkipedia. ISOC just sold a sustainable $50Million revenue stream. If LetsEncrypt copped a $0.10 fee per certificate, how much would it cost for Ri…

> If LetsEncrypt copped a $0.10 fee per certificate, how much would it cost for Richard to rubber stamp a Symantec acquisition of LetsEncrypt? Easy now, don't give him ideas.

Don't worry, they have your best interest at heart. With this extra money, we can fund our certificate mission for our own personal gain forever. It's very good for everyone.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#312

Post by ohashi »

jmull wrote: post #87

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 i…

I wonder how he drew the short straw to ruin his reputation with this garbage.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#313

Post by Shorel »

cartoonworld wrote: post #63
oefrha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why OP tosses out 10% price hikes per year as reassuring. Maybe he’s too rich to make sense of small amounts of money like this. Even $10 is a nontrivial sum in some underdeveloped countries as is. Also, this is just “what Ethos themselves have said about their intentions with regard to .org”, and we all know how good for-profit entities are at keeping promises that affect their bottom line.

His argument seems to be: 1: The Internet Society does great work protecting the Internet 2: Ethos is a worthy successor to the Internet Society as the steward of .org. This is incoherent. THis blog post can be summed up in one sentence: "I reckon its fine." Thanks for voting to sell .ORG Richard Barnes. I know he thinks its fine, I think jacking the prices up 10% year over year is nonsense. What do the financials lo…

There's no argument. Everything in that post has been designed to be indexed online and published as some kind of counter-argument against criticisms but that's it.

It's all bogus and he knows it. He is to busy counting money to care.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#314

Post by jacob-malthouse »

dang wrote: post #254
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.yc…

ok got it!

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#315

Post by pas »

astrodust wrote: post #301
pas wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> costs OP meant that current .org clients can ditch .org if/when costs for them (profits for .org) gets too high. > ... Many countries just contract some registrar/registry/regperson to provide the service. But of course, it's dead simple. (The complications arise if you are .com and thousands of squatters try to catch dropping domains, etc.)

The costs of a .org domain should be proportional to the cost of providing a .org domain. What costs are there for running a registry that require a huge price-tag? There are wholesale registrars that will provide white-label service for a couple of bucks a domain per year. The costs can't be that high.

"Costs" doesn't mean real operational costs and so on. It is used as an accounting/business concept. Simply any .org customer has a yearly associated cost for having/leasing that .org domain.

OP's comment doesn't distinguish between different sources of that cost. (Sure, it has many components, the cost for the network, servers, development, security, backup, payroll, legal, accounting, some sales, marketing, audits/compliance, insurance, whatever risk premium, maybe off site backups, disaster recovery, outreach, bonus projects, 20% time, blablabla. Plus profits.)

Obviously everyone knows that the profits is the part that will now grow much larger. And eventually the .org customers will ditch .org because of that. But OP is right, from .org customers' standpoint, it doesn't matter why, it just matters that their costs will rise and as soon as it crosses a point (cost of switching becomes less than the cost for remaining on .org) folks will leave.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#316

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]
Post reply on HN