Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

Post by goatinaboat » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #92

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #37

How relevant is a TLD anymore? There are so many options. Most people seem to use Google, and then after visiting the site, they use whatever the autocomplete in their address bar is. Or, they use an app. At least in India, I've seen most people doing this on their smartphones. Nobody likes to type in the address bar anymore.

Yes, this. I don't get how anyone actually cares about a top level domain. There are so many. Pick another.

Post by fractalf » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #143

I really don't like the internet and humanity in general for threads like this. Calling a particular person names like navie, idiot, gaslighter, corrupt, fool, greedy, insane, malicious, patsy, disingenuous, child, disgusting, unethical, etc, the way people in this thread have, is never a good thing. It's really not cool when the target is a person. Receiving dozens of people angrily accusing you of evil is upsetting…

Post by Symbiote » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

techsupporter wrote: post #210

Thorrez wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this, because it would take 10 years for the new high rate to even take effect for existing registrants, and new registrations would likely fall off right away. It's the exact opposite of that. As soon as you announce a price hike, you don't get a giant loss of money, you get a giant flood of money as tons of people pre-pay for 10 years.

You even kinda get the best of both worlds, a cash infusion and more money in the long run. The org TLD has 14 million registrations in it right now. If Ethos announces a 50% price hike (increasing the base charge from $9 to $13.50), my guess is 2% of the domains would be immediately renewed for the 10-year max at the old price. So right off the bat, Ethos have 280,000 domains * ($9 * 10 years) = $25,200,000 in new c…

Post by koolba » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

ttul wrote: post #86

wpietri wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than naive. His two points are in impossible conflict. He wanted a pile of money for the Internet Society, enough to "secure that work's future". But the only way selling .org is worth a pile of money is if it gets extracted from nonprofits. With plenty of profits left over to feed the investors who put up the initial cash. If the Internet Society wanted to secure their future, they should have rai…

Why could the Internet Society not have been the one raising prices by 10% ad infinitum. Need capital? Borrow it and pledge .org as security. There’s basically unlimited funds available in this manner because the .org cashflow stream is as reliable as anything. How naive indeed. What a shame.

Post by Marsymars » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

ailideex wrote: post #60

simias wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's reasonable in this case, people often complain (and sometimes reasonably so) that the people in this bureaucratic entities are far removed from the "real world" and don't really understand what they're dealing with.

Too bad his credentials did not make his argument good. I bet if he actually had a good argument ... well then nobody would be complaining that his argument is bad.