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

The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

blogs.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 189 posts

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#61

Post by yborg »

lancewiggs wrote: post #42
lazyguy2 wrote: post #39

The reason it sold at half it's valuation is because the valuation was bullshit. It's like some guy claiming his classic car is worth 25,000 dollars. If nobody is offering 25k for it then it's not worth 25k. Period, end of story.

They didn't appear to shop the offer. It's like that 'some guy' selling his classic car to a classic car dealer who was walking by, without first testing the price with experts or posting an advertisement.

Except in this case the "some guy" is selling the classic car without actually owning it since it actually belonged to a public museum, and the dealership was just set up last week by the former director of the museum who just happened to retire the week before that.

There seems to be some kind of breach of fiduciary trust here somewhere, heads should roll at ICANN even if all of this was somehow not in violation of any laws.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#62

Post by cryptonector »

cameldrv wrote: post #46
lancewiggs wrote: post #3

I wrote about this too - linked in the article. https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-o... The travesty is that ISOC has given up a sure-fire stream of $55+ million/year in tax-free income, along with the ability to easily grow that to over $100m/year with price increases - all for just over $1.1 billion. As any r/personalfinance reader can tell you a rule of thumb for endowments is to spend a ma…

The bigger issue is that org was given to PIR to manage in the public interest. It was not supposed to even be a moneymaker for ISOC, they were just supposed to be the stewards of .org in the public interest. The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows that they’re operating it in the interest of the ISOC and not the public interest. ICANN should simply create a new entity that will charge break-even fees for regi…

Operating .org in the public interest in the past doesn't mean that it has zero value today. "The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows" not so much that "[ISOC is] operating it in the interest of the ISOC" but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest.

How is ISOC a dubious charity?

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#63

Post by beiz »

kick wrote: post #29
TomMckenny wrote: post #27

Honest question: since .org is relied on world wide, why are just two US state courts the only ones with the legal power to review the sale?

Why would anywhere else have legal power to? .org doesn't sell domains directly to consumers, and ICANN is intentionally centralized, up until a few years ago being owned by the US government. US-owned US-created top-level domains are hardly an international affair. You could argue that DNS is broken, and that ICANN is bad, but there's no legal argument for .org being subject to foreign governments.

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to. with everything set in place and the technology readily available, we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy. we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will. you already see russia and china going this route.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#64

Post by LegitShady »

lancewiggs wrote: post #3

I wrote about this too - linked in the article. https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-o... The travesty is that ISOC has given up a sure-fire stream of $55+ million/year in tax-free income, along with the ability to easily grow that to over $100m/year with price increases - all for just over $1.1 billion. As any r/personalfinance reader can tell you a rule of thumb for endowments is to spend a ma…

I feel like you're missing some capital recovery factors and alternatives analysis to be so strong with your statement.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#65

Post by JumpCrisscross »

beiz wrote: post #63
kick wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anywhere else have legal power to? .org doesn't sell domains directly to consumers, and ICANN is intentionally centralized, up until a few years ago being owned by the US government. US-owned US-created top-level domains are hardly an international affair. You could argue that DNS is broken, and that ICANN is bad, but there's no legal argument for .org being subject to foreign governments.

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the r…

> neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use

For all practical purposes, these systems are owned by the U.S. because America maintains them. That lets the U.S. government cut it off to unfriendly users, the definition of control.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#66

Post by kick »

beiz wrote: post #63
kick wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anywhere else have legal power to? .org doesn't sell domains directly to consumers, and ICANN is intentionally centralized, up until a few years ago being owned by the US government. US-owned US-created top-level domains are hardly an international affair. You could argue that DNS is broken, and that ICANN is bad, but there's no legal argument for .org being subject to foreign governments.

thats a very US-centric view. not everything is monetary, certain things are simply setup with intent of management and responsibility in a global world. DNS is one of those things, GPS another. do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US, but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use. even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the r…

DNS is one of those things,

False.

do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US,

False.

but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use.

False. The US has no responsibility, they own it.

even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to.

And until other countries choose to, they get to deal with the consequences of their shortsighted reaches for centralization.

we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy.

Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled.

we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will

The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent.

you already see russia and china going this route.

Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#67

Post by schoen »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #38
romaaeterna wrote: post #11

If this is really the case, someone(s) very possibly took and gave bribes, and we're going to see Federal scrutiny all over this.

No, we won't. Not unless you help set that in motion. Have you contacted the DA already?

Note that in the U.S., district attorneys are normally the prosecutors at the state court level. At the Federal level, most prosecutors are "U.S. attorneys" or "assistant U.S. attorneys".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_attorney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#68

Post by zapita »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #33
zapita wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But would buyers of national bonds consider buying debt from a non-government entity? Would they be willing and able to model the investment without a good understanding of the Internet industry?

They buy trillions of bonds from GSEs every day. This wouldn't be any different. Agency debt is a well understood thing.

Thanks. I find this topic fascinating, even though I know nothing about it. Do you have any recommendations for reading material to learn more?

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#69

Post by LegitShady »

cryptonector wrote: post #62
cameldrv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger issue is that org was given to PIR to manage in the public interest. It was not supposed to even be a moneymaker for ISOC, they were just supposed to be the stewards of .org in the public interest. The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows that they’re operating it in the interest of the ISOC and not the public interest. ICANN should simply create a new entity that will charge break-even fees for regi…

Operating .org in the public interest in the past doesn't mean that it has zero value today. "The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows" not so much that "[ISOC is] operating it in the interest of the ISOC" but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest. How is ISOC a dubious charity?

>but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest.

Oh who did this organization with a duty to steward .org for public interest sell it to? How can you separate that duty from the action of selling it to a third party without that duty?

It's an interesting hair to split.

Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation

#70

Post by patrickdavey »

edgefield0 wrote: post #24

Is there a benefit to locking in pricing today for say 10 years? I assume the major registries, such as namecheap and godaddy, will allow a longer term buy in?

Another way to look at it - is there a downside to locking in the current price for 10 years? It doesn't _seem_ if Ethos do end up with it that the prices will go anywhere but up.

I renewed my .org for 10 years.

Post reply on HN