Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#1

Post by StuntPope » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs
easydns.com

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#2

Post by tekacs » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

Since the site seems to be struggling: http://archive.is/0aOfz

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#3

Post by spullara » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

Ethos Capital, as per their website and business model, is a private equity firm, not a VC firm. Very different things. Hard to take people seriously when they don’t know the difference.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#4

Post by herodotus » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

If I understand the article correctly, ISOC took a reasonable decision based on (a) they are not supposed to be a registry operator; and (b) "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". That is, the $75m/annum profit from .org may not last for long, but the $1.1135 billion will be a great endowment fund.

The flip side is the implication (and I hope I read this correctly) is that a bunch of smart but possibly ethically challenged individuals infiltrated ISOC (a non profit) in order to create investment opportunities for themselves down the road.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#5

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

No, that's not why they did it. They did it because they thought they could get away with it. But the charter of ISOC never was to make a mint of the .org TLD by selling it, and as far as I'm concerned this deal will be reversed at some point or we should simply set up an alternative root and a pox on both their houses.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#6

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:52 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #3

Ethos Capital, as per their website and business model, is a private equity firm, not a VC firm. Very different things. Hard to take people seriously when they don’t know the difference.

Are you here to argue that PE people are somehow more ethical or better at business than VC people? That's going to be a laugh line for anyone who has ever been exposed to them.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#7

Post by stefan_ » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

The "devils advocate" first part misses that ISOC was already not operating .org, all of that was outsourced to Afilias, PIR was essentially a vehicle to pay some more graft to another set of musical chairs people that travel freely between ISOC, ICANN, PIR and Afilias.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#8

Post by paul7986 » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

TLDR: Rich get richer

ICANN owner who also owns Donuts, Inc (they own all the new TLDs .donuts, etc) buys .org from former owner (ISOC) who is also now much richer.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#9

Post by zarriak » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #3

Ethos Capital, as per their website and business model, is a private equity firm, not a VC firm. Very different things. Hard to take people seriously when they don’t know the difference.

Calling it a VC firm is a much nicer thing to say than PE.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#10

Post by slantedview » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

herodotus wrote: post #4

If I understand the article correctly, ISOC took a reasonable decision based on (a) they are not supposed to be a registry operator; and (b) "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". That is, the $75m/annum profit from .org may not last for long, but the $1.1135 billion will be a great endowment fund. The flip side is the implication (and I hope I read this correctly) is that a bunch of smart but possibly ethica…

Both can be true:

- That ISOC was reasonably justified in taking a lump sum rather than operating a registry.

- That the sale of the registry was corrupt and not in the public's best interest.