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

Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

circleid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 316 posts

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#231

Post by jaclaz »

mod50ack wrote: post #171
VLM wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the general public the only TLD is .com My kids school can't use a .edu domain because everyone insists on typing in variations on whatever.edu.com and its just too much of a headache. My home town can't use a .gov domain because everyone insists on typing in variations on cityname.gov.com and its just too much of a headache. Even more hilariously my city name is my county name so there's a turf battle o…

So far from the case. Your kids' school can't use a .edu domain because this is reserved for use by higher education bodies. If your kids were university students, they'd be using .edu, I guarantee it. Every reputable institution in the US uses .edu. (Outside the US, universities all follow various national systems.) Local government is a terrible example because these are approximately the worst organizations ever w…

>Have you ever heard of wikipedia.org? That's a pretty popular site on a .org domain. And no, not everybody assumes it's a .com.

Sorry to say so, but that is not a particularly valid point, since https://www.wikipedia.com/ redirects to https://www.wikipedia.org/ and actually both are registered to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#233

Post by stefan_ »

oefrha wrote: post #98
cartoonworld wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument seems to be: 1: The Internet Society does great work protecting the Internet 2: Ethos is a worthy successor to the Internet Society as the steward of .org. This is incoherent. THis blog post can be summed up in one sentence: "I reckon its fine." Thanks for voting to sell .ORG Richard Barnes. I know he thinks its fine, I think jacking the prices up 10% year over year is nonsense. What do the financials lo…

.org registry was already a pretty good cash cow. According to their tax return[1], in 2018 they grossed ~$93m over ~$33m registry administration expense, ~$7m employee compensation (interestingly there's a 30% year over year increase here), and some other smaller expenses. They raised $48.7m for Internet Society. Note that out of registry administration expense, $18.1m went to Afilias[2] (this should also be in the…

Of course, the previous CEO Brian Cute of PIR (the non-profit) was previously "Vice President of Discovery Services" at Affilias, the for-profit that they are paying to do PIRs job.

Basically, everywhere you look, you see a bunch of blood-leeching ticks on the internets backside.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#235

Post by cbkeller »

dpau wrote: post #74
simias wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is a frankly insane take for me. >For those who might be unfamiliar with the Internet Society, our mission is as follows: Nobody cares, that's utterly irrelevant as long as operating .org doesn't go against the Society's mission statement (which it clearly doesn't). By the author's own admission "While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our…

I also find it insulting that he belittles "leasing domain names" as beneath the mission of the Internet Society. Management of .org is actually extremely important to all of those who are involved in non-profits. So are we to assume that selling off .org to private equity for a quick cash grab is in line with their "mission"?

It's also hilarious, considering that they're only in that business because they asked to be [1]:

> ICANN circulated a request for proposals in May 2002 for a new organization to manage the .org domain. The Internet Society (ISOC) teamed with Afilias to put forth one of eleven proposals ICANN received. ISOC won an endorsement within ICANN and was recommended to the selection committee

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#236

Post by rdiddly »

Idealistic greed is different from regular greed. Idealistic greed is always about expanding the mission. To do work that's even more important. To reach even more people. To expand the battle or skirmish into a full-on war (see this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21612488). It can lead to ruin just as easily as regular greed can, particularly when you consider that the people you end up negotiating with, who often specialize in regular greed, are usually better at it, and aren't hobbled and constrained the way you are by your vision or mission.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#237

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

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…

Sorry, but no. He is not just a random guy off the street, he is in a responsible public position, and this is already his defense, so it is reasonable to think that this is the best he could come up with to defend his decision, it's not some misinterpreted tweet that was taken out of context.

Also, I have not seen anyone advocating for hurting him, which would obviously be out of place, but you can not take on the responsibility for a public good worth billions and then expect exceedingly friendly treatment when you completely fuck it up because you didn't care to exercise even a minimal amount of diligence, in the best case.

And while "idiot" or "fool" might not be neutral terms, they are still terms that at their core describe his actions in this case (assuming it wasn't corruption), it's not just random name calling to degrade a person.

Now, if there really is an explanation how all of this is in the public interest, sure, bring it forward, and push it to the front page of HN, I certainly would want to know. But the mere fact that even the best-founded judgement could always turn out to be completely wrong after all based on new evidence is not a reason to hold back criticism when there is solid evidence supporting that criticism, because the theoretical possibility does not mean it is actually likely or common.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#238

Post by throwaway2048 »

zrm wrote: post #226
wwweston wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s correct enough to say that DNS is an application of consensus, but rather than considering that a distinction vs property, one might consider asking themselves in what sense property itself isn’t consensus.

Property is not based on consensus. Even if millions of people think Jeff Bezos has too much money, with nowhere near consensus that he should have it, a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff. The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace confli…

However, a sufficiently large mob can easily take everything Bezos has, no matter what any court says.

Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws.

If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#239

Post by fanf2 »

rocky1138 wrote: post #218

If the management of .org customers was as distracting as he claims (I believe it), it would have been better to, instead of selling it, open up the administration to bids where the private companies have to reach certain goals and ensure certain provisions. If the management company can't do it or they start breaking their contact, control reverts back to the Internet Society.

PIR already outsourced the .org registry operations to Afilias years ago

Re: Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

#240

Post by dogcow »

ddevault wrote: post #112

IRS Form 13909 can be used to submit complaints about non-profit organizations to the IRS. Here are two pre-filled Form 13909's, one for ICANN and one for ISOC. Just print it out, add your personal information to both, and mail it to the address listed on the bottom of the form. https://yukari.sr.ht/dotorg-form-13909.pdf Alternatively, this file can be opened with LibreOffice Draw to make edits and prepare your docum…

Thanks for this.

Additionally, it might be beneficial for folks to file complaints with the Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs [1], since the Internet Society is incorporated in D.C., and with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [2], since its principle place of business is Virginia and is registered as a foreign corporation there.

[1] https://dcra.dc.gov/ [2] http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/about-agency-directory.shtml

Post reply on HN