3 ms·

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:

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.

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.