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

Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

easydns.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#61

Post by walrus01 »

nikolay wrote: post #60

I haven't yet heard the point that if .org prices go up too much, nonprofits could abandon it and switch to .ngo, which is better anyway. Many will keep their .orgs even if prices go up 10-fold or more, but what percentage is that from all .orgs?

Why should organizations be forced to change their business cards, website address, all email addresses, letterhead, signage and such because the new venture capitalist vulture owners of .org are a pack of shady rent seekers?

To quote Michael Bolton from Office Space:

Samir: Hmm… well why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?

Michael: No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

iudqnolq wrote: post #45
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dismissal of the field of economics, but of some of the popular businesses and business practices. The science of economics identifies the negative-sum games too. Keywords include, "tragedy of the commons", "externalities". Examples include AirBnB, tobacco companies, consumer IoT, advertising industry.

I know what externalities are. Are you claiming the marginal social cost of everything is greater than the marginal social benefit?

Not everything. Some. I wrote "a good chunk of", not "all of".

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#63

Post by BinaryIdiot »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #39
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced that TLDs will slowly fade away. They're not very intuitive, especially if they're not a .com and the user is not very technical. I know Google would love for search to basically replace the need for them but I doubt that'll entirely happen. But I don't think they are long for this world.

What do you think will take their place? Do you think something will replace DNS?

That's the tough part. People overwhelmingly just search for the site they want and go to it that way so it's hard to figure out what would take its place other than some form of search. But a lot of people seem to be thinking about this (I remember Google announcing a while ago that they were looking at how DNS could be replaced).

I don't know what a good answer is. From the user perspective it'll likely look more like a search. but technically? Honestly it could remain DNS just abstract away from the TLDs to make them not mean as much.

At least that's my opinion.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#65

Post by duskwuff »

e2le wrote: post #15
jacquesm wrote: post #5

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.

OpenNIC would be that alternative root although often are they at odds with ICANN creating new tlds that conflict with their own. It seems like the DNS system in it's current form is broken and I'm not convinced an alternative root is the solution but perhaps part of one.

As I've said previously in other discussions, OpenNIC is, quite simply, in no position to replace ICANN. They're a tiny amateur operation with no organized governance, no formal registries, and very little infrastructure. (Many of their "root" resolvers are hosted on small VPS providers like Linode and DigitalOcean.)

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#66

Post by mavhc »

bad_user wrote: post #22
e2le wrote: post #17

How often do people notice domains? I've seen many users use Google or similar to find their desired site such as facebook without typing the URL. If it were only an IPv6 address, would people even care?

I notice domains. And I don't trust domains that don't end in .com, .org or a recognizable national TLD. Besides, the point is irrelevant. When you build an online brand, you build it by having links distributed on the web, to get the Google juice going, on social media, on forums, etc. Even in business emails you add your domain there for easy reference later. Then if you have to change the domain, all of those link…

But we created a system where every x years you're forced to pay whatever the owner of the tld says you must, basically you're being held hostage and can never be freed.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#67

Post by duskwuff »

troquerre wrote: post #48
e2le wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenNIC would be that alternative root although often are they at odds with ICANN creating new tlds that conflict with their own. It seems like the DNS system in it's current form is broken and I'm not convinced an alternative root is the solution but perhaps part of one.

Handshake.org is trying to create an alternative root that is better (along the dimensions of security and governance) than the current system. I can see it gaining adoption especially in light of recent events.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but the fact that the first thing mentioned on their homepage is a cryptocurrency "airdrop" doesn't leave me with a confident feeling about the project's long-term viability.

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#68

Post by littlestymaar »

iudqnolq wrote: post #45
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dismissal of the field of economics, but of some of the popular businesses and business practices. The science of economics identifies the negative-sum games too. Keywords include, "tragedy of the commons", "externalities". Examples include AirBnB, tobacco companies, consumer IoT, advertising industry.

I know what externalities are. Are you claiming the marginal social cost of everything is greater than the marginal social benefit?

Maybe it is, and we just didn't realize it yet: climate change and others destructions of the environment may lead us to situation worse than what we started the twentieth century with. We can't know for sure, but that's not impossible.

And BTW, the OP didn't mqke q claim about “everything”, and just said some of the transactions have a clear negative sum (which is hard to argue against).

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#69

Post by hjkhtroeiupwq »

walrus01 wrote: post #61
nikolay wrote: post #60

I haven't yet heard the point that if .org prices go up too much, nonprofits could abandon it and switch to .ngo, which is better anyway. Many will keep their .orgs even if prices go up 10-fold or more, but what percentage is that from all .orgs?

Why should organizations be forced to change their business cards, website address, all email addresses, letterhead, signage and such because the new venture capitalist vulture owners of .org are a pack of shady rent seekers? To quote Michael Bolton from Office Space: Samir: Hmm… well why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael? Michael: No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

For once, .ngo is more credible. From wikipedia:

> Unlike the more prevalent .org domain, which is also managed by the Public Interest Registry, .ngo will require validation of the registrant's non-governmental status

Re: Why ISOC sold .ORG to VCs

#70

Post by sb8244 »

GordonS wrote: post #16
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…

> That is, the $75m/annum profit from .org may not last for long Why wouldn't it? .org is one of the most well-known TLDs, and I see know reason why there would be an exodus away from it (well, apart from this sale itself!) - it's as sure a thing as there can be.

The article argues that nothing is forever. There may be technology changes in the future that make DNS providers obsolete. So that money is less guaranteed over time than an endowment.
Post reply on HN