4 ms·

Couple of questions: First, why does ICANN keep insist on picking on .org? In 2004, or thereabouts, .org owners saw a proposal to restrict that gTLD to just n

Couple of questions: First, why does ICANN keep insist on picking on .org? In 2004, or thereabouts, .org owners saw a proposal to restrict that gTLD to just not-for-profit and community groups. Considering .org was originally listed as the gTLD for "this doesn't fit into any of the other categories" (back when we actually enforced that .net be a network operator and .com be a business), this would have booted a whole lot of individuals and unorganized groups out of the space. It was also the first gTLD to be foisted onto Verisign, though it got moved to Public Interest Registry in 2003. Which brings up the second question, why would PIR want price caps to be removed for the .org gTLD? PIR is, supposedly, not-for-profit itself and is owned by the Internet Society, a very not-for-profit group. Shouldn't PIR be pushing for .org fees to be as low as possible to sustain its mission of effectively operating the .org gTLD for as many people as it can? Shouldn't PIR be acting more like a credit union and less like a Verisign?

techsupporter 7y ago
I found, in the linked article, a link another article (by the same author) that answers my second question, why PIR would want price caps to be removed: https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/24/how-icann-uses-the-org-registry-to-fund-the-internet-society/ https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/24/how-icann-uses-the-org... My summary of that article is that the article assumes that the Internet Society (which owns PIR and was given .org as a way to fund ISOC's activities) has grown large enough--or may eventually grow large enough--that it considers its current funding levels inadequate and wants the price caps removed so it can receive even more funding. That article also points out that one non-profit, ISOC, is largely being funded by payments from other non-profits since .org is wildly popular in the non-profit space.
- woofie11 7y ago
  I see. The not-for-profit has grown from 8 people to over a hundred, and wants to become another corrupt, POS not-for-profit focused on executive fiefdoms and headcount, rather than doing any good. They have a monopoly position on .org, and so are able to do so if they choose. Seems like the right response is to cap price increases to 0%, or at most inflation, rather than the current 10%.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    That is exactly what I imagined when I read that summary. Dawut? We might not be able to run a profit, but we can certainly make sure to spend ever dollar spuriously.
    - woofie11 7y ago
      I've been involved in several not-for-profits. The "not able to run a profit" part is a little bit misleading: 1) Base take-home salary is typically a million dollars for the CEO or similar senior positions. 2) A senior position also allows for massive additional sources of income. Not-for-profits actually have far fewer legal restrictions than for-profits. For-profits run with a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value (source: extended conversations with a lawyer specializing in wealth management). If a not-for-profit engages in research to benefit a board member's business, or the not-for-profit launches a for-profit subsidiary, or otherwise, all that seems to be kosher. See Clinton and Trump foundations for an example of how most not-for-profits work.
rambojazz 7y ago
Even though I believe we should have a TLD reserved to nonprofits and communities, doing this for .org is probably too late now. They should however push for as low a price as possible to nonprofits and communities, maintaining high prices for commercial activities if they want.
icedchai 7y ago
I've been on the internet since the early 90's, back when domains were free. Even back then, .Net and .Com were never enforced for a particular purpose. If you could fill out a form, send an email, and wait, sometimes for up to a month, it was yours.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  Ah, I remember the old InterNIC hostmaster forms. FTP it from a site, fill it in, hope you didn't screw up a space somewhere, wait. That's how I got my .org that's old enough it has been legally able to buy its own drinks for years. As for this: > Even back then, .Net and .Com were never enforced for a particular purpose. Maybe we had a different experience but I was actively turned down twice for .net domains because the listed organization wasn't a network operator. One time was for a local computer company that wanted a name ending in "NET" and the second was for a small co-operative ISP (and the rejection said to go to .org, funny enough). You could be right about .com; I wasn't ever turned down for registering in that zone but I only remember people caring back when having a .com wasn't "cool" because it meant you were "commercializing the InterNet."

techsupporter 7y ago

I found, in the linked article, a link another article (by the same author) that answers my second question, why PIR would want price caps to be removed: https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/24/how-icann-uses-the-org-registry-to-fund-the-internet-society/ https://domainnamewire.com/2019/04/24/how-icann-uses-the-org... My summary of that article is that the article assumes that the Internet Society (which owns PIR and was given .org as a way to fund ISOC's activities) has grown large enough--or may eventually grow large enough--that it considers its current funding levels inadequate and wants the price caps removed so it can receive even more funding. That article also points out that one non-profit, ISOC, is largely being funded by payments from other non-profits since .org is wildly popular in the non-profit space.

woofie11 7y ago
I see. The not-for-profit has grown from 8 people to over a hundred, and wants to become another corrupt, POS not-for-profit focused on executive fiefdoms and headcount, rather than doing any good. They have a monopoly position on .org, and so are able to do so if they choose. Seems like the right response is to cap price increases to 0%, or at most inflation, rather than the current 10%.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  That is exactly what I imagined when I read that summary. Dawut? We might not be able to run a profit, but we can certainly make sure to spend ever dollar spuriously.
  - woofie11 7y ago
    I've been involved in several not-for-profits. The "not able to run a profit" part is a little bit misleading: 1) Base take-home salary is typically a million dollars for the CEO or similar senior positions. 2) A senior position also allows for massive additional sources of income. Not-for-profits actually have far fewer legal restrictions than for-profits. For-profits run with a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value (source: extended conversations with a lawyer specializing in wealth management). If a not-for-profit engages in research to benefit a board member's business, or the not-for-profit launches a for-profit subsidiary, or otherwise, all that seems to be kosher. See Clinton and Trump foundations for an example of how most not-for-profits work.

rambojazz 7y ago

Even though I believe we should have a TLD reserved to nonprofits and communities, doing this for .org is probably too late now. They should however push for as low a price as possible to nonprofits and communities, maintaining high prices for commercial activities if they want.

icedchai 7y ago

I've been on the internet since the early 90's, back when domains were free. Even back then, .Net and .Com were never enforced for a particular purpose. If you could fill out a form, send an email, and wait, sometimes for up to a month, it was yours.

techsupporter 7y ago
Ah, I remember the old InterNIC hostmaster forms. FTP it from a site, fill it in, hope you didn't screw up a space somewhere, wait. That's how I got my .org that's old enough it has been legally able to buy its own drinks for years. As for this: > Even back then, .Net and .Com were never enforced for a particular purpose. Maybe we had a different experience but I was actively turned down twice for .net domains because the listed organization wasn't a network operator. One time was for a local computer company that wanted a name ending in "NET" and the second was for a small co-operative ISP (and the rejection said to go to .org, funny enough). You could be right about .com; I wasn't ever turned down for registering in that zone but I only remember people caring back when having a .com wasn't "cool" because it meant you were "commercializing the InterNet."