Once the deal goes through someone from the ISOC will be getting a high-paying job at Ethos. Wait for it . . .
Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
11–20 of 114 posts
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#12This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
> We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
The Handshake Naming System [1] provides a decentralized option, works directly with the existing legacy system so there will be 0 difficulty in the transition, and it’s usable right now [2]!
Just install hsd [3] and point your resolution to localhost to join the movement to an internet owned by the people.
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#13Once the deal goes through someone from the ISOC will be getting a high-paying job at Ethos. Wait for it . . .
Already happened:
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#14Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#15Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#16This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
I'd argue that the problem is corruption, not (the degree of) centralized control. What we need here is a governance system for TLDs that is hard for a handful of well-connected profit-motivated bad actors to corrupt.
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#17This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
> We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now. The Handshake Naming System [1] provides a decentralized option, works directly with the existing legacy system so there will be 0 difficulty in the transition, and it’s usable right now [2]! Just install hsd [3] and point your resolution to localhost to join the movement to an internet owned by the people. [1] https://handshake.org [2] htt…
What happens when Ethos starts running their own mining software (or bribes existing miners) in order to jack up prices for .org?
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#18This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
The alternative is your ISP suddenly decides that google.com directs to one of their servers.
US ISPs already do this in order to inject ads, which is why you have to use 3rd-party DNS servers. Wouldn’t be anything new.
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now. The Handshake Naming System [1] provides a decentralized option, works directly with the existing legacy system so there will be 0 difficulty in the transition, and it’s usable right now [2]! Just install hsd [3] and point your resolution to localhost to join the movement to an internet owned by the people. [1] https://handshake.org [2] htt…
What happens when Ethos starts running their own mining software (or bribes existing miners) in order to jack up prices for .org?
In Handshake, rather than renting your domain from .org or .com, you own your tld.
This means that nobody will be able to charge you for using your own name. No more rent seeking or getting taxed by a pseudo government of the internet.
Re: Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
#20This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
I'd argue that the problem is corruption, not (the degree of) centralized control. What we need here is a governance system for TLDs that is hard for a handful of well-connected profit-motivated bad actors to corrupt.
In concept, I believe you're 100% correct. I really, really do. But in real life, I feel it's just enough control and power (that they wield currently) that many people in the same role would be subject to temptation of being corrupted. Hence, not unlike general governing, what we need is control by the many, and not by the aristocratic few.