This is one of the most blanetly and openly corrupt transactions in modern history. It saddens me that it looks like they are going to get away with it as well..
The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
111–120 of 189 posts
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way to look at it - is there a downside to locking in the current price for 10 years? It doesn't _seem_ if Ethos do end up with it that the prices will go anywhere but up. I renewed my .org for 10 years.
After 10 more years of using it you're going to be even more locked in.
That's assuming they don't use the time to transition to another domain gradually.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#113This is a good chance to stop our dependence on DNS and move to things such as .onion domains instead (which by the way help avoid the whole certificate CA mess).
I believe the problem is the lack of protocols implemented in browsers. It's needlessly fragile to have a single route to the data.
"Web pages only last about 100 days on average"[1]
http was nice, we gave it a good spin, it was certainly close enough for the cigar but in all honesty... where you have 100 days to find the content you want to consume it is not even a reasonable approach. I bet a lot of it is still available some place but whoever archived it legally may not distribute it without permission.
I really don't care if TOR, IPFS, freenet or zeronet work out of the box. If it means access to more content its great. I don't even know how to use gopher atm.
Good stuff is happening[2] but where they apparently chose to make it an extension is pretty lame.
also..
If the user types "salvation army" into the browser we know what they want. Selling the rights to deny access is not what we need.
[1] - http://blog.archive.org/2015/02/11/locking-the-web-open-a-ca...
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their customers, if you think about it, are perhaps more likely to value what the domain stands for. Some of their customers perhaps. If you go back and look at what companies were doing with domains 20 years ago most medium and large enterprises bought .com, .org, .net and some country code tld domain because that's what everyone recommended "in case someone cybersquatted". I think behaviour has stopped now there ar…
.org customers are not businesses, it's the non-profit
Ask craigslist.org about that.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#115I still can't really believe someone can sell a building block of the world wide web like .org tld. Who runs .net? .com? .edu? .info? Can they be sold, too?
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They all knew what they were signing up [..] Really? Knew as in "ticked a box" or as in "informed consent"?
You should not tick boxes if you are not informed as to what they do.
Not very pragmatic in the general sense, with the length of ToSs and signatures and check marks on forms. There's a difference between having the ability to read and review forms and informed consent before ticking boxes.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Further, the sale of the asset to a third party is essentially laundering the extraction of maximum value. The buyer pays the NPV when operated as a profit focused enterprise, then insulates the ISOC from blowback when it actually does this. The ISOC can then turn around and feign betrayal with the rest of us, its pockets full of money.
This is the internet. We don't forget things like this. People's names have been attached to it, like Andrew Sullivan (CEO) and Richard Barnes (board member defending it). We know exactly who fucked over everyone here, they admit it publicly. There's no pretending about it, Andrew was more than happy to sell out the non profit space. Just read the interview: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/29/isoc_ceo_dot_org_s…
This is the Internet. Everyone will have forgotten this besides, like, five people before this time 2020.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#118I bought an org domain back in the 90s, and have been using it as my personal domain (i.e. also primary email address) ever since.
While, granted, I was perhaps a little silly to go org (it seemed like a good idea back then!), it's mildly terrifying that my personal footprint on the web of 20+ years can now be held to ransom by a random VC firm, and to keep my own email address I might have to pay an additional $$$ annually.
Sigh.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#119" . . .to invest it with guidance from Goldman Sachs, who financially brokered the acquisition."
Oh, Goldman was involved ? Well, once the AG's file lawsuits with motions to stop the sale, a motion for discovery will likely be filed to determine how much money was passed around, how much Goldman made off this crooked deal, and we will be counting on our friends in the press to publish far and wide to embarrass and humiliate the Goldman douchebags . . .
and BTW, this lawsuit provides the perfect opportunity to also craft the motion for discovery to blow wide open these internet organizations finances and show the world how much they squander their money on bogus salaries, self dealing, etc.
Re: The .Org Fire Sale: How it sold for less than half its valuation
#120I still can't really believe someone can sell a building block of the world wide web like .org tld. Who runs .net? .com? .edu? .info? Can they be sold, too?
Yes all of those are private now. .com is still with ICANN (which is now an NGO), .net is now VeriSign, .edu is Educause NGO, .info is Afilias (coop formed by several independent domain registrars)