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

How We Saved Dot Org

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#31

Post by nso »

Kwpolska wrote: post #18
nso wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone counts their holdings in USD. That price difference may be what sets a launched and abandoned project apart. One of my neighbors is 17 and interested in coding and computers. I'd say their family MAYBE brings in 250 USD a month -- but probably less. A dollar can be a lot.

Does your neighbor really need a domain, and does it have to be a .org? You can do web stuff with free or ultra-cheap domains. And most hosting services will cost much more than the $0.67 or $0.85 you pay per month for a .com or .org respectively (at CloudFlare Domains).

He probably doesn't need an .org, but I was more commenting on the general attitude displayed by the parent poster.

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#34

Post by yzmtf2008 »

brandur wrote: post #21

Another great win for the EFF. We shouldn't forget how much time and effort fighting this kind of thing takes, and we are very lucky to have an organization who's willing to put in the legwork from which all of us are huge beneficiaries. ( Edit: just donated. ) I guess it was implied by the article, but wasn't perfectly clear to me: does this mean that .org just stays with its current holders, ISOC? (Internet Society…

> In return, they were well compensated as they managed .org registrations over all these years, which is more or less a license to print money.

Clearly, there’s more to managing a domain than a “license to print money”. Otherwise, who would want to sell it?

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#35

Post by wahern »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #6
eps wrote: post #2

No formal investigation into the ICANN corruption that led to this situation in the first place?

Cali AG was looking into it.

According to the AG's April 15, 2020 letter, an investigation was already completed.

> To that end, my office conducted an investigation of ICANN and its role in approving the transfer of the .ORG Registry Agreement from the Public Interest Registry ("PIR") (the supporting organization to the Internet Society ("ISOC")) to Ethos Capital

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/AG%20...

That letter ends with a warning that the AG would "continue to evaluate" the matter. Considering the ICANN board rejected the sale April 30[1], two weeks after the letter, I suspect the AG's office is no longer looking into the matter. Because the sale was never completed, and everything else seems to be business as usual, I don't think there's anything for the AG to continue looking into. The AG's job is to make sure charitable trusts adhere to their purpose, not to police potential impropriety that doesn't materially effect the trust. (They basically play the role of a shareholder, who in regular corporations can sue if the corporation doesn't adhere to the articles of incorporation; or the role of a beneficiary in a regular trust, who can sue if the trustee misappropriates the assets.) I'm also not sure if there's any criminal exposure here. Usually self-dealing is a civil matter, even for charitable trusts, unless it involves some other criminal act--e.g. fraud, but in this case nobody really thinks the board was being duped by the former ICANN CEO. If there was potential criminality then probably the AG wasn't confident it could make a case beyond a reasonable doubt without an actual sale and evidence about how .org would have been administered in fact.

[1] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2.... Announcement at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-board-withholds-consen...

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#36

Post by jandrese »

yzmtf2008 wrote: post #34
brandur wrote: post #21

Another great win for the EFF. We shouldn't forget how much time and effort fighting this kind of thing takes, and we are very lucky to have an organization who's willing to put in the legwork from which all of us are huge beneficiaries. ( Edit: just donated. ) I guess it was implied by the article, but wasn't perfectly clear to me: does this mean that .org just stays with its current holders, ISOC? (Internet Society…

> In return, they were well compensated as they managed .org registrations over all these years, which is more or less a license to print money. Clearly, there’s more to managing a domain than a “license to print money”. Otherwise, who would want to sell it?

Someone looking for a quick buck?

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#38

Post by wegs »

noizejoy wrote: post #22
mr_toad wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the best outcome will be that Donuts gobbles up everything, gets sued for being an illegal monopoly, broken up, and then the whole sordid registry system can be replaced.

Now you have me curious - what kind of better replacement do you have in mind?

Rules:

1) First-come-first-serve for your first handful of domains. Price is nominal (e.g. $1/year).

2) Increasing price with number of domains held. If I hold myname.com, it's $1. If I hold a thousand domain, the last 500 are at $1000/year.

3) Oversight for transfers. If sold, resale value is capped. Historic domains shouldn't be used for spam but perhaps go to archive.org or similar entities.

4) Managed by a government institution or not-for-profit with open meetings, salary caps, public records requests, and other (legally-enforceable) checks-and-balances.

5) Several TLDs, but you can't register in all of them. You can have mybusiness.com or mybusiness.mobi, but not all of the above. If I have the same business name as you (Apple records v. Apple computer), I go to a different TLD.

6) Rules for new TLDs. You can't pull the Coursera.org "We're a not-for-profit" shtick. Old domains grandfathered in.

7) Oversight/governing board with members from the EFF, FSF, OSF, and so on.

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#39

Post by leot »

yzmtf2008 wrote: post #34
brandur wrote: post #21

Another great win for the EFF. We shouldn't forget how much time and effort fighting this kind of thing takes, and we are very lucky to have an organization who's willing to put in the legwork from which all of us are huge beneficiaries. ( Edit: just donated. ) I guess it was implied by the article, but wasn't perfectly clear to me: does this mean that .org just stays with its current holders, ISOC? (Internet Society…

> In return, they were well compensated as they managed .org registrations over all these years, which is more or less a license to print money. Clearly, there’s more to managing a domain than a “license to print money”. Otherwise, who would want to sell it?

Selling lets the PE firm be “the bad guys”. ISOC gets to dodge responsibility while retaining nearly all the profits of being culpable.

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#40

Post by hkt »

brandur wrote: post #21

Another great win for the EFF. We shouldn't forget how much time and effort fighting this kind of thing takes, and we are very lucky to have an organization who's willing to put in the legwork from which all of us are huge beneficiaries. ( Edit: just donated. ) I guess it was implied by the article, but wasn't perfectly clear to me: does this mean that .org just stays with its current holders, ISOC? (Internet Society…

CCOR would be great. I don't know how they're structured, but the co-operative model would be perfect for TLDs.
Post reply on HN