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

The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

prospect.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#71

Post by EvanAnderson »

philsnow wrote: post #51
dr_dshiv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Well, let's say that a mission driven for profit corporation could ensure that .org owners aren't for-profit -- and do a better job than the current committee. Should they be allowed a .org? In my world, I'd say no, since I'd prefer that .orgs are actually restricted to non corporates.

> What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Fair point. The "restriction" was really a recommendation (from RFC 920 in 1985, in a more polite time on the nascent "internet"). > [...] Should they be allowed a .org? Who cares? The cat is out of the bag. As of today there are 1514 TLDs [0]. .mil and .gov should still have some requirements, but .org, .net, .com (and almost all…

What "recommendation" are you referring to from RFC 920? All I see is:

ORG = Organization, any other domains meeting the second level requirements.

I see nothing about not-for-profit or money mentioned at all in RFC 920. There are occurrences of the word "commercial", but they're all in reference to the COM domain. The ORG domain is only referred-to as being for "Organizations".

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#72

Post by EvanAnderson »

sgc wrote: post #23
dr_dshiv wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why not just get a .club extension? Shouldn't .orgs be reserved for big orgs?

Why should it? .Org is about an ethos of philanthropy, which a club just doesn't have.

Per RFC920[1], which defined the initial TLDs, the ORG domain was for "Organizations". It doesn't say anything about "ethos", not-for-profit status, etc. It's for "organizations".

I'd love to see a citation re: this "not-for-profit" designation being codified somewhere by IANA. It's not supported by RFC 920.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#73

Post by EvanAnderson »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #37

I updated my .org domains for the max 5 years that my provider would let me. At least I'm locked in for now. The whole thing seems shady though I really want to believe that the new owner will play nice. As humans we can decide that altruism > greed, something tells me that greed will rule here.

Good idea. My personal .org domain is up for renewal right now. I guess it's time to lock it in for now.

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#74

Post by stubish »

iameli wrote: post #59
arkitaip wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect what the new gTLD program has really done is to make com/org/net seem even more trustworthy and premium because people can no longer keep up with the influx of new gTLDs ( all 1200 of them!).

That's fair. I'm hoping this'll become less true over time as folks get used to there being lots of TLDs.

Is this happening? Actual question if there is someone here who measures this sort of thing.

.io seems to have been accepted by the tech community, as the place to go when you can't get your .com or .net. Maybe .ai too. Are there any new gTLDs gaining acceptance in the wider community?

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#75

Post by wwright »

chaostheory wrote: post #68
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas the Internet was created in a capitalist world, and capitalism loves rent-seeking.

Would it be any different in a non-capitalist world? If we’re being honest, corruption eventually permeates everything given time. IMO the biggest difference between capitalism and socialism is the massive centralization of power in socialist systems. The effects of corruption tend to be much worse the more power is concentrated. These systems of finite resource distribution are ultimately just hacks to mitigate the…

How do you compare the centralization of a socialist government against the centralization of power among FAANG? Genuine question.

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#76

Post by flxy »

stubish wrote: post #74
iameli wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair. I'm hoping this'll become less true over time as folks get used to there being lots of TLDs.

Is this happening? Actual question if there is someone here who measures this sort of thing. .io seems to have been accepted by the tech community, as the place to go when you can't get your .com or .net. Maybe .ai too. Are there any new gTLDs gaining acceptance in the wider community?

.gg has seen decent adoption in newer gaming related sites. But that's the only one I can think of right now.

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#77

Post by chaostheory »

wwright wrote: post #75
chaostheory wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be any different in a non-capitalist world? If we’re being honest, corruption eventually permeates everything given time. IMO the biggest difference between capitalism and socialism is the massive centralization of power in socialist systems. The effects of corruption tend to be much worse the more power is concentrated. These systems of finite resource distribution are ultimately just hacks to mitigate the…

How do you compare the centralization of a socialist government against the centralization of power among FAANG? Genuine question.

In a purely socialist system, all power lies in the government itself. All decisions for resource distribution lies with the government itself.

In a capitalist system, power is more distributed between the government and private organizations. The government alone doesn’t get to decide who gets what resources. while these private organizations will collaborate with the gov and vice versa at times, there will always be some tension between the groups since they are constantly competing for power, which results in an adhoc system of checks and balances vs a system of near absolute power

IMO we’ve already tried that experiment. It doesn’t work. Pure socialism and pure capitalism only work in ivory towers

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#78

Post by throwawayjava »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #37

I updated my .org domains for the max 5 years that my provider would let me. At least I'm locked in for now. The whole thing seems shady though I really want to believe that the new owner will play nice. As humans we can decide that altruism > greed, something tells me that greed will rule here.

to future readers: namecheap will let you do 9 years.

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#79

Post by Barrin92 »

Retric wrote: post #67
kortilla wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent seeking would require the new owner to not really be doing anything (I.e. not operating the tld nameservers, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking Just paying recurring fees (e.g. paying rent to your landlord) does not match the definition of rent-seeking.

Operating the .org domain is not creating new wealth. It’s the same as a VA selling toll roads or someone buys old songs. They all spend some money maximize their income stream. However, that spending is not creating something useful. Operations spending is required, but does not generate any long term wealth. You keep cleaning a hotel ever day and it does not get ever cleaner over time the way an actual investment d…

> that spending is not creating something useful.

operators of a domain are essentially stewards of that domain and ensure that it's operated correctly, that there are no duplicates, and that it can be trusted. They do create value in the same way the American bar association does, by establishing and maintaining trust between end-users and providers of a service.

Re: The Attempted Corporate Takeover of .Org

#80

Post by jtl999 »

arkitaip wrote: post #21
iameli wrote: post #4

> Verisign controls the registries for .com and .net, two of the internet’s most popular. All it does is administer a database and collect small sums from website owners, but with computing power rising and practically no marginal cost to adding another website to the database, the entire enterprise is a license to print money. In the third quarter of 2019, Verisign showed operating income of $205.6 million on $308.4…

I suspect what the new gTLD program has really done is to make com/org/net seem even more trustworthy and premium because people can no longer keep up with the influx of new gTLDs ( all 1200 of them!).

I'm not generally sympathetic to the "domain investor" types, but this quote from domain investor Rick Schwartz I feel is spot on and has been my thought since "day one" of the new TLDs

> "As we go into the seventh year of the new gTLD experiment, they are meaningless. They haven’t been adopted by almost anybody. Circulation is poor. So many registrations are questionable or penny-promotional. The majority are parked and not in use nor will they ever be. And 99.9% of the people on this planet could not name a single one of them! Not a one!"

Full article: http://domainincite.com/25103-di-leaders-roundtable-4-big-pr...

Post reply on HN