17 ms·

Why I Voted to Sell .ORG

• steve19 7y ago
  What it comes down to is the board wanted a large pile of cash so they could do more of whatever it is they like doing, which apparently is not what many of us think their core mission should be. I look forward to reading how much the board members are being paid now, and how much they will be paid in a years time.
  • morisy 7y ago
    Most non-profit boards pay $0. The Internet Society is one of them, with Barnes taking $0 from the organization (as board members, they also have to disclose if a related organization pays them): https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/541650477/12_2018_prefixes_54-58%2F541650477_201712_990_2018121916022417 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/54165... There are a few exceptions to the boards-get-paid-$0, but they're rare and doubt personal financial motivations are part of the decision.
    • steve19 7y ago
      But funnily enough the trustees of the Public Interest Registry (the .Org subsidiary) were all being paid before it was sold. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/331025119 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/331...
• tinus_hn 7y ago
  Even if Ethos’ ‘intentions’ are to be taken at face value, $26 is still a ridiculous price for basically no service. But these intentions are essentially worthless or they’d be put in writing. Why would there be no non-profit willing to do this ‘work’ providing this ‘service’ for whatever price you want? You should know, your organization provides much more service for no money at all.
• berbec 7y ago
  I wonder if he really believes this when he was typing it. I find it difficult to understand the rationale of selling ORG to private equity and the justify it as good for the internet. I hope this line of BS turns out to be true, but giving ORG over to a bunch of MBAs with experience in day trading does not a confident nerd make.
• kyranjamie 7y ago
  > limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year Oh, well. That's okay then.
  • noneeeed 7y ago
    I.e. expect to see prices increase by 10% a year for the foreseeable future...
  • nirse 7y ago
    well, that's their 'intention'. I don't even know what that means for a business. Very little or simply nothing at all?
  • dredmorbius 7y ago
    Doubling every 7 years.
• the_angry_angel 7y ago
  The simplified timeline (as I understand it, willing to be corrected if I'm wrong); 1. PIR, or someone very close, seems to have lobbied to have price restriction of .org removed. My understanding is that PIR made the argument that they're a non-profit, they have no reason to raise pricing extortionately 2. This was passed, despite a large number of comments against the idea, Ethos was incorporated the following day 3. PIR sold itself to Ethos, a for profit company The people involved seem to be moving between ICANN, PIR and private firms. Given all these things I don't think it's unreasonable that people are deeply sceptical. Especially with the ambiguity of "no more than 10% per year" being throw around.
  • chopin 7y ago
    10% per year is much, though. Even with this it's an unreasonable price hike.
    • jopsen 7y ago
      For domain names it feels kind of double edged sword. Higher prices cost you money, but keeps the domain sharks a little further away. Keeping domain sharks away is nice.
      • gorgoiler 7y ago
        You don’t need high base pricing to keep domain sharks away. Some throwaway alternatives that are less workable, but already seem fairer: You could limit numbers of domains per entity, or increment the price for each new domain you buy. If you try to buy a domain using a company with human directors it is 10x the price. If you buy a domain with non-person owners (e.g. a shell company) then its 100x. As an aside: I wish more things were taxed or priced higher based on the obscurity of the entity purchasing the item. It’s no cakewalk, but it still feels too easy for those with the resources to use company and legal structures to be able to act with a disproportionate lack of public scrutiny.
  • ohyes 7y ago
    Seems about right to me, this stinks of whatever the non-profit version of regulatory capture is. I wonder how hard it would be to make a parallel ICANN. I guess this is naiive, but how can a non profit sell itself to a for-profit, it seems all sorts of wrong.
• Traster 7y ago
  This author is just outright naive. >Even in the worst case, if Ethos considers dramatically increasing prices (which, to be clear, we do not expect them to do!), the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. 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. No, the worst case scenario is that they jack up prices and then run a massive campaign FUD campaign about non-profits without .org addresses. Or they start selling of Oxfam.org to competitors. Or hell, they start doing differential pricing, gouging the people they think can pay. >We're all trying to make the Internet a better place No we're not. Don't be an idiot. Private equity companies are making money from investments they have no interest in making anything a better place and it's insulting to expect people to believe that.
  • scroot 7y ago
    "The foxes have assured us that they will limit their consumption in the hen house for a ten year period"
    • stjohnswarts 7y ago
      This is the best summary thus far, lol
  • cjslep 7y ago
    Agree. Very naive. A 10% increase forever versus 10 year temporary stay of prices for some lucky few who manage to opt out. 10 is pretty small compared to forever. I'll take the guaranteed 10% nest egg until retirement, please.
  • tobltobs 7y ago
    > during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. That is not what is written in the Registry Agreement. "Registry Operator shall offer registrars the option to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price ... for periods of one (1) to ten (10) years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten (10) years."
• jacknews 7y ago
  So this is "we need the money to survive, and we completely trust these private equity guys to do the right thing" 10%/year should be reaping quite some profit after a while. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a pump-and-dump kind of deal, where PE substantially raise prices and then sell the entity at a big profit, given the effectively locked-in forward profits.
• jannemann 7y ago
  Interesting to see how people are bound to their selective perception if they can somehow profit from it. Ethos will squeeze every last drop out of this opportunity.
• danpalmer 7y ago
  > Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year This immediately stuck out to me as a really bad deal. Rising with inflation, somewhere between 1 and 4% per year, would essentially keep prices stable. This is tricky when selling internationally, but roughly possible. Rising by 10% each year is significantly faster than inflation, and would result in a $20 domain name doubling in price in 7 years, or 6x in 20 years. This is the internet we're talking about, 20 year time horizons are important and yet still short sighted. In 100 years we're talking $275,000 rather than the $400 that inflation would get us to. > Ethos has said that their plan is to "live within the spirit of historic practice," This is not what Private Equity does. It cuts costs and quality, raises prices, strips assets, and seeks to significantly increase profits. I think it's naive and short-sighted to take them at their word, as this article admits they are doing.
  • oefrha 7y ago
    Not sure why OP tosses out 10% price hikes per year as reassuring. Maybe he’s too rich to make sense of small amounts of money like this. Even $10 is a nontrivial sum in some underdeveloped countries as is. Also, this is just “what Ethos themselves have said about their intentions with regard to .org”, and we all know how good for-profit entities are at keeping promises that affect their bottom line.
    • cartoonworld 7y ago
      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 look like and what's the internet getting out of this? A money grab looks like a money grab.
      • oefrha 7y ago
        .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 tax return), a for-profit technical registry provider. So every time you paid your $10 .org registration fee, at least $5 went to Internet Society as a mandatory donation, somewhere between $0-2 went to Afilias the for-profit contractor, some small amount went to GoDaddy for marketing, etc. Anyway, a non-profit printing $50m/yr without begging for donations is certainly nothing to sneer at, and under the control of a for-profit entity they should expect more even if the price stays the same. And you bet the price won't stay the same. [1] https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2017_2018-990.zip https://thenew.org/app/uploads/2019/09/PIR-2017_2018-990.zip [2] https://domainnamewire.com/2019/10/28/pir-org-slashes-registry-fee-to-afilias-in-half-to-18-million/ https://domainnamewire.com/2019/10/28/pir-org-slashes-regist...
• koolba 7y ago
  > Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year There is nothing reasonable about the current prices. It’s literally a few hundred bytes of data mostly static data. “10% per year” means it will double every seven years. “Up to” means they will be doing it at the maximum. And unless this is legally codified I doubt they would adhere to that either.
• mannykannot 7y ago
  In which a patsy sets out the arguments by which he was manipulated. A large part of his motivation appears to be delusions of grandeur within an organization, the Internet Society, which, up to now, has been of no relevance whatsoever, and which has only now achieved a degree of prominence through an act of apparently naive stupidity.
  • NamTaf 7y ago
    Good point. They claim they need the money to further in their mission to improve the internet, but they’re throwing out the one good thing they’re well-known for doing (and I’m doing so, trashing their reputation amongst the public) in order to (so they claim) bankroll other things that most people have never heard of in relation to them. That’s an incredibly shortsighted gamble and reeks of excuses.
  • bananamerica 7y ago
    Maybe he got a kickback
  • saxonww 7y ago
    Not totally irrelevant, they have been a leading advocate for DNSSEC. Perhaps infamous would be a better word.
  • noneeeed 7y ago
    Yeah, this really read as a long winded way of saying "I want to be more important, so we sold our soul (and source of revenue) to make that happen". It stinks and his justification was cringeworthy to read.
• bluesign 7y ago
  I hate this justification of doing bad stuff with ‘for the greater good’ excuse.
• thunderrabbit 7y ago
  How does he mention LetsEncrypt and not have http redirect to https on his site?
  • icebraining 7y ago
    It doesn't seem to be his site.
• lioeters 7y ago
  > So if we take Ethos at their word, they should be just as good a steward for .org as the Internet Society has been Sigh.. I'm guessing the author is/was not aware of the serious conflict of interest among the decision-makers and private stake holders who passed through the revolving doors of IS, ICANN, PIR, Ethos. Voting with such naivete, especially underestimating the greed of a for-profit organization, is not being a good steward. They've let down the public in this decision.
• jawns 7y ago
  > So if we take Ethos at their word It is unfortunate that we have a business culture where to take someone at their word is not only naive but so reckless that the duped gets most of the blame rather than the duper. And yet, here we are. This is the reality. Taking a private equity firm "at their word" is so foolish that it's hard to believe the author isn't being disingenuous.
  • wpietri 7y ago
    Any lawyer in the world would have said, "No, Dickie, we don't just take companies at their word once the money changes hands. That's what contracts are for." At best this guy is incompetent, assuming his technical skills magically transfer to being business skills. But like you, I have a hard time thinking he believes any of this.
    • 55555 7y ago
      Yeah, the idea that you would take a private equity firm "at their word" and not require it in writing is laughable.
  • michaelhoffman 7y ago
    I can't agree more.
  • bananamerica 7y ago
    Was business culture any different before?
  • bananamerica 7y ago
    Was business culture much different before? Edison literally sent thugs to tear down competitors' film equipment...
  • abvdasker 7y ago
    Businesses cannot self-regulate. The profit motive supersedes all else. The US flatly does not have the regulatory environment to ensure internet infrastructure is accessible and affordable. Net neutrality is the cardinal example in which regulatory capture by business interests immediately led to deregulation. This is a similar story but instead it was a nonprofit organization being captured by business interests. Is there nothing the free market can't ruin?
• tobltobs 7y ago
  > This transaction will put that bigger mission on a solid footing I don't understand how that should be true. Either Ethos would have too pay too much or Ethos would have to be able to run this business more cost effective. Both sounds questionable. > While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, ... > Establishing a more diverse portfolio of investments will allow us to have more predictable revenue over time. Relatively steady sound pretty predictable to me. It will be interesting to see who from the inner circle will benefit from those future "investments". > Even in the worst case, ... the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. That is wrong: "Registry Operator shall offer registrars the option to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price ... for periods of one (1) to ten (10) years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten (10) years."
• mirekrusin 7y ago
  "(...) what Ethos themselves have said about their intentions (...)" means nothing. They can change their mind, put new directors in a month that will have different opinions etc. What's important is what they can legally do and how incentives are structured. Giving monopoly to private equity and expecting good things to happen is a joke.
• Tharkun 7y ago
  So...how much does it cost to run gTLD these days? Perhaps the time is right to set up a non-profit to run one at actually affordable prices, instead of the current ripoff and the future .org price increases.
  • icebraining 7y ago
    You have to pay about $200k to ICANN just to submit a proposal for a new gTLD.
    • apple4ever 7y ago
      Because it costs so much to add a new gTLD /sarcasm
      • C1sc0cat 7y ago
        Its not cheap you have to commit to very high up times with massive redundancy eg survive continent failure
        • 55555 7y ago
          Does ICANN pay for that infra though or do you? Because if ICANN doesn't pay I don't see how that's relevant.
          • C1sc0cat 7y ago
            No the registry does that for real TLD's - this isn't a vanity domain like .sony
      • notahacker 7y ago
        It certainly reduces the likelihood of everyone and their uncle putting in requests to bag a few gTLDs for themselves...
    • C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Those are the vanity domains bidding for a proper tld is much more $$$
• mod50ack 7y ago
  I'm a .org domain user. My email is a .org, my website is a .org. It's [my name].org. I've registered through 2029 now. Hopefully by then this whole nonsense has passed. Honestly domain names have been handled very poorly over the past 10 years, between this and the ridiculous gTLD system. They are just becoming super-expensive vanity items for corporations to get nice redirects.
  • flir 7y ago
    Ditto. surname.org here. I'm going to 10-year it, and hope DNS is somehow obsolete in a decade, otherwise I suspect I'll get a nasty surprise.
  • byuu 7y ago
    I did the same. If things go to hell I'll do global 301 redirects starting around 2026-2027, and work to get every link possible updated across the internet, to drain every last possible cent of value from my .org, and then I'll abandon it if the prices have gone up extortionately.
• zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  What a fucking moron! 1. No, 26$ is obviously not a sane, let alone a reasonable price for a domain registration. For comparison, you can register .de for < 4 EUR/year, so at a price of 26$ this is redirecting 220 million dollars of funds that were donated for charitable work to definitely not charitable profit for these investors--or 160 million more than right now. 2. The price increase is capped at only 10% per year? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you seriously not have a clue how exponential growth works? .org has existed for 34 years, if you add another 34 years of increases of "only" 10%, you are at 255$ per year. Or, as he himself calculated, it's more than doubling the price in ten years, which would be just crazy. 3. "They promised they'd be good!" ... seriously? You seriously can not see the problem with a transaction where a profit-seeking entity obviously explicitly avoids actually promising anything (that is: making any of those "promises" legally binding)? After all, it is possible to actually promise all those things in a meaningful way, that's what the legal system is for. 4. "Give back to the .org community through a Community Enablement Fund" ... or in other words: Appropriate charitable donations where the donors have already decided what causes they should go to and redistribute them to their liking. Can anyone really be too stupid to see through this and be in a position to make such a decision? 5. "While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our revenue on a single business, and required a certain amount of our resources to be spent managing that business, distracting from the broader mission." ... WTF? And running it in the future will not require any resources? Does this guy not understand basic financial math either? Like, if you buy a business, you pay for expected profits, i.e., after you you have subtracted expected expenses, i.e., if you sell a business, you still "pay" for all the future expenses? Selling a business does not magically create money, it only shifts the cash flow to the present day. The only way selling a business can increase your cash flow is if the buyer increases prices or reduces costs. It's all so obviously from the bullshitting playbook you can hardly believe anyone would actually believe any of these "arguments" to be of any value, when the path to actually guaranteeing all of these things that we are supposed to just believe is so obvious.
• bachmeier 7y ago
  Is the 10% increase for individual domains or on average? If it's on average, that means those with the most valuable domain names can expect increases of 300% or more soon...
• sys_64738 7y ago
  Sell to a private equity firm that tries to maximize profit from those assets. Yeah, what couldn’t go wrong with that. At least this individual has admitted liability for his part in this TLD’s forthcoming downfall.
• NamTaf 7y ago
  If this was supposed to reassure people then I want to meet those people as I have something to sell them. 10% per year price increases are insane! You can’t exactly just change domain names to a cheaper option either, like say insurance. Your whole identity is locked to it. This only makes me more convinced that it’s a bad move.
• DoctorPenguin 7y ago
  Always remember that theese are the people in charge of running the internet. I really hope he didn't have too much say in the important things at Let's Encrypt. Because statements like this really damage the little trust I have left in companys.
• greatgib 7y ago
  So much bullshit and so littke valid argument in this big post. But don't worry 'Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year' It can ONLY increase of 10% per year. Like if it is a low number...
  • tehlike 7y ago
    And i dont think this is written on a contract, sounded like a mere intention.
    • 55555 7y ago
      1. We know that there's no limit in the contract, because if there was, they would just say that. 2. The reason there isn't a limit in the contract is because Ethos don't actually intend to limit themselves to 10% yearly. If they did, they would have agreed to write it into the contract, which would have let them pay less for .org
• Aeolun 7y ago
  Oh thank god! They said they would be good. I’m glad there’s no recorded instances in history where that turned out to be a patent lie.
• TheMagicHorsey 7y ago
  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.
  • tobltobs 7y ago
    What comes up in Google are websites, those websites are from a domain, those domains have a TLD.
  • icebraining 7y ago
    Even if the TLD is irrelevant for new domains, losing your existing domain (with all its back links, Google score, email reputation, etc) can be hard, so existing .org domain holders may be in for a nasty choice.
  • unreal37 7y ago
    Yes, this. I don't get how anyone actually cares about a top level domain. There are so many. Pick another.
    • goatinaboat 7y ago
      I don't get how anyone actually cares about a top level domain Do you even email, bro?
  • VLM 7y ago
    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 over name.gov. At least my hometown city name is rare, there are supposedly 88 cities named "Springfield" in the USA. They heavily market a .com domain for my city although it redirects to a ridiculous variation of city-name.gov. I honestly don't know the marketing domain for my county, but its probably a .com also. I can think of insider sites on .org for IT and technical people; debian.org for example. The death of .org would hit IT and tech people kinda hard. I can't think of a popular general public site on the .org TLD, and even if there is one, well, it can just move to .com where the end users already assume it is anyway. In short, if .org is squeezed, a couple insiders and IT people will angrily leave to .com, and the general public will not notice, other than its a little easier to find them, because "all domains end in dot com" as I've been told many times over the years. Insider sites will go to specialty TLDs that the general public do not realize exists and are thus quite cheap, .mobi or .name or .biz or similar. Presumably the private equity firm figured this out during due diligence. By analogy, they MUST know they did not buy the one monopoly cable modem provider for a region which they could squeeze for all its worth ... they knowingly bought the equivalent of one food truck in a highly competitive market. If they destroy .org for fun or whatever, well, its not really a big deal to switch, so knowing they won't make much money off the destruction, why bother destroying .org? By analogy you can make a lot of money by destroying Iraq, so there was intense corporate media pressure to destroy Iraq, and Iraq was destroyed. However, you can't make a lot of money destroying Clipperton Island, and as such there is not much big corporate media pressure to invade or bomb Clipperton, and its unlikely it'll ever be destroyed (at least, not for profit, LOL).
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• tjpnz 7y ago
  If anyone believes Ethos will stick to increasing prices by no more than 10% a year they're dreaming. This is a private equity firm, not a non-profit.
• AllasAskBar 7y ago
  Don't worry you guys .tor will just become stronger and we will get a free'er world, no?
• DrScientist 7y ago
  This is what happens when the PR or fund raising people get in charge of a charity - suddenly it becomes all about raising awareness or funds and not about doing.... Why provide a service ( like .org ) when you can 'raise awareness'? Or raise funds for others to do stuff. The great thing about being the fund raising or awareness part is it's 1. where the money is 2. where the exposure is 3. and you have no responsibility for actually delivering stuff!!! So you can justify higher salaries for the people running the charity.... https://hbr.org/2011/09/you-should-be-able-to-get-rich https://hbr.org/2011/09/you-should-be-able-to-get-rich
• bogwog 7y ago
  So basically his two reasons are: “they gave us money, and I think they’re worthy”
• souterrain 7y ago
  > The Internet Society does great work protecting the Internet and bringing it to the people who need it most — work that is way more impactful than leasing domain names. This transaction secures that work's future and independence. Is “lease” the understanding others have regarding the relationship among a registrar and registrant? Isn’t the registrar intended to operate the supporting infrastructure and no more? Where does the concept of a “lease” enter the transaction?
  • unreal37 7y ago
    Because you rent domain names. You don't buy them and they are not your property. So it's correct to say registrars lease domain names to registrants.
  • ben509 7y ago
    You could own your name outright if you could take sole responsibility[1] for resolving disputes. Basically, we'd have to have some scheme where everyone can advertise which names they own, and then you'd negotiate directly with DNS operators to convince them that your advertisment takes precedence over someone else's. So it could be done, it might even be a better scheme, but I think it would be expensive and messy. [1]: You could obviously pay someone to negotiate on your behalf, but you're still initiating the action.
• annoyingnoob 7y ago
  Renewing my .org domains now for as long as I can.
  • rinze 7y ago
    I just did the same. I'm with Dreamhost, and from the panel you can only do that for 2 years, but if you contact them they'll let you do another 5 additional years.
• jmull 7y ago
  Wow, this is the kind of guy running the internet... he just sold out all the non-profits of the world. Jesus. If you read carefully -- despite the title, he works hard to obscure it -- the "why" is he just wants the money. His argument about why it's OK -- "Trust me, Ethos is totally trustworthy" -- is absurd and incoherent. First of all, the point and purpose of private equity is to make money. To misconstrue the issue as distrust of private equity is backwards. I trust them 100% -- to fulfill their purpose to make money. They will extract money from this investment as effectively and efficiently as they can. Raising prices quickly is just one thing they might do, by the way. If they can find an opportunity to make a nice and quick profit that devastates .org they won't hesitate to take take it if it meets their current investment goals.
  • ohashi 7y ago
    I wonder how he drew the short straw to ruin his reputation with this garbage.
• archi42 7y ago
  "While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our revenue on a single business, and required a certain amount of our resources to be spent managing that business, distracting from the broader mission." So, now they don't have any significant income stream anymore? Great! So once they run out of money from the sell, they're closing down? That is, unless they find some other way to generate a profit to burn on non-profitable-but-good things (like they're doing now). For which .org was the perfect fit? I mean, if THEY would have increased prices by 10% per-year for the next few years, well, I think people would have been mad, too. But not as much as now, since at least the money would have flown to some "good use"(tm). But now? Cash flows to private investors, who expect (surprise!) to EARN money on that deal.
  • IshKebab 7y ago
    Yeah this makes zero sense. If Ethos are going to keep the prices reasonable (yeah right), they'll make the same amount of money as PIR did, so they won't have paid more for it than PIR would earn anyway.
• willgreen 7y ago
  This is nothing but the author attempting to justify his unethical decision to himself. I hope he lives long enough to recognise, and potentially correct, his mistake.
• syshum 7y ago
  >>> the Registry Agreement for .org requires a 6-month notice period during which domain owners can lock in a 10-year registration at pre-increase rates. This should seriously discourage Ethos from doing this Or the could announce a massive increase to get all the .org owners to register for 10 years to give them a massive influx of capital right away, then divest that capital in to some other venture, then sell PIR to someone else. I am sure Verisign would love to buy it, or Donuts the Internet Society can not stop them from off loading it in a couple of years after they extract their money from the .org space.
• yesimahuman 7y ago
  This is so incredibly naive, and he made at least one decision based on flawed understanding of the 10yr price lock in: only _registrar’s_ need to be notified. It’s up to them to notify registrants. If they were looking at a significant price increase for .org or to lock in existing customers for 10 years, would they notify their registrants? I would think no! It’s extra sad because they had a commercial vehicle with which to further their mission, which could have been a huge asset to the ecosystem, and instead of finding a way to have it be a source of sustainability, they threw it away for a one time cash infusion. The rest of the post is just this guy trying to make himself feel better for an awful decision.
• jdkee 7y ago
  “ So if we take Ethos at their word, they should be just as good a steward for .org as the Internet Society has been, with robust ties to the community and an explicit public-benefit orientation.” This man is a fool.
• jellicle 7y ago
  I come away from reading that completely convinced that the decision to sell .org will be a terrible one for internet users and .org name holders.
• cyborgx7 7y ago
  I never actually stopped to consider why they chose to sell of the TLD. I thought this was just a terrible organizational decision. Call me naive, but it didn't occur to me that it was about the cash infusion. I can't believe they want to jeopardize such an important part of the structure of the internet for a one time cash infusion. Absolutely disgusting. >If we take Ethos at their word What a child
• DrScientist 7y ago
  Quick question - www.internetsociety.org - did you get a sweet heart deal or are you on the same future track as everyone else?
• C1sc0cat 7y ago
  A great pity that Poptels (Worker Coop) bid did not succeed over the internet society. I worked for one of the other bidders for .org as did Ivan Pope. Don't suppose Billg or some altruistic rich people want to fund us to get the Band back on the road :-) Only Half Joking I am sure that Ivan And some of the Poptel team would be up for it
• ajb 7y ago
  Right. This guy was appointed to ISOC by IETF, unfortunately this year, so his term lasts until 2022. However there are 4 board members whose term is up in 2020 [1], one appointed by the IETF. According to BCP77 [2] The IETF will choose its appointee in January. Nominations for candidates for all 4 positions apparently close next week, Dec 6 [3] so anyone who has the time and interest to scrutinise the nominees (or even propose new ones) needs to act on this pretty soon. [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/ https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/ [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp77 https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp77 [3] https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/elections/2020/call-for-nominations/ https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/elections/...
• 55555 7y ago
  IMO, putting "Ethos" in the name of your private equity firm makes it a little bit too obvious that you don't want people to realize that you care about nothing but money.
• pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  "Hey guys, now we run the .org registry we're providing valuable security to the registry users through synergistically responding to key realtime threats. As such, in order to now return correct IP addresses _every_time_ we need extra funding and so there is now a $100 security fee per 100k requests. But, in keeping with our forthright policy to stimulate internet growth the domain renewal fee is only 10% higher than last year. We're also freezing all updating of equipment as it might introduce security vulnerabilities." -- new .org registry owners, next year, probably
• TheRealPomax 7y ago
  For all the good you've done in the past and now, Richard, this is just one long disappointing read. Between the lines, the text is "we don't have the people to maintain PIR and decided that rather than hire people for it, we should sell it" and then a for-profit shell was set up and PIR was funneled over to it, and now it's no longer your problem to have to deal with. From your perspective, that's not making things better: that's walking away from them. And now you've made it _our_ problem, one _we don't have the power to fix_ and from our perspective, that's not you making the internet better: that's making our internet worse.
  • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > "we don't have the people to maintain PIR and decided that rather than hire people for it, we should sell it" Except, unless I am misunderstanding something there, they had outsourced running the registry to Afilias anyway? So it's not even that ...
  • stefan_ 7y ago
    For PIR, an organization that literally does nothing but collect money as it has outsourced all of its principal obligations, they sure have a hugely inflated wage bill at an easy 5 million a year, for a ton of various directors and VPs. If anything, this has been a good wakeup call that fees for .org could and should be slashed by some 80%.
• goombastic 7y ago
  Why change something that's working well? For profit, that's why. The author is either dumb or invested.
• ptest1 7y ago
  I don’t understand how this “sale” is legal in the first place. PIR is a legal 501(c)3 nonprofit. You can’t really sell a nonprofit to a for-profit company except in unusual and rare circumstances. In California, I know you need a letter from the state Attorney General to do so. There are also federal restrictions on sales like this, particularly around self-dealing transactions. This transaction was obviously self dealing. Someone seriously needs to dig into this. The PIR board members could be in big legal trouble. And also ICANN, which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit as well and is subject to self-dealing restrictions. This is obvious, plain as day corruption. In the business world, not much can be done. But these are two nonprofits (PIR and ICANN), so something can and should be done. These kind of transactions aren’t normally legal. Like, just read the examples of what an illegal self dealing transaction is in the eyes of the IRS: https://boardsource.org/resources/private-benefit-private-inurement-self-dealing/ https://boardsource.org/resources/private-benefit-private-in... “Keep Our City Beautiful, a membership organization, plants a city alley with elaborate flowering bushes. The alley is not heavily traveled but the decorations increase the attractiveness of the city’s main restaurant whose owner is a member of the organization.” ICANN clearly engaged in an illegal self dealing transaction by allowing their former CEO to enrich himself with a deal that would otherwise not be possible. Edit: please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324 for a “what you can do right now”
  • zrm 7y ago
    Not only that, isn't there a sense in which a TLD is not actually property at all? The DNS operates by consensus. There are a bunch of root server operators who all agree who operates the .org TLD and then list those NS records in their root servers. What stops people from getting together, agreeing that a private equity firm would be a poor steward of the .org TLD, choosing somebody else to operate it instead, and pointing the NS records there instead? Nobody really owns the DNS. It's a thing that works because there is a broad consensus on how it should work. If the consensus is that this is a dumb idea then what's stopping people from choosing not to go along with it? And staging a coup over this would set a good precedent that these types of flagrant money grabs are not to be tolerated.
    • 7y ago
• jijji 7y ago
  i would question how much money is this guy making on the backend from this newly formed "ethos" corp... smells pretty rotten
• harumph 7y ago
  "We're a private equity firm. Just trust us, it'll be fine!" Because that's worked out so frequently for humanity in the past.
• ddevault 7y ago
  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 https://yukari.sr.ht/dotorg-form-13909.pdf Alternatively, this file can be opened with LibreOffice Draw to make edits and prepare your document digitally: https://yukari.sr.ht/dotorg-form-13909.odg https://yukari.sr.ht/dotorg-form-13909.odg lodraw crash course: F2 + click drag to make a new text box, Ctrl+[ to reduce the font size to something reasonable, red icon in the toolbar along the top to export as PDF. You can send the document by email to eoclass@irs.gov.
  • ptest1 7y ago
    I’m doing this! Both for PIR and ICANN. Please see my other comment on this thread. It is likely this “sale” could be considered illegal. Here is the information for ICANN which can be used for the above form as well: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy18-irs-tax-form-990-return-organization-exempt-income-tax-27may19-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy18-irs-tax-for... Remember that the founder of this PE firm was at ICANN, so this transaction is self-dealing on ICANN’s end as well.
    • ddevault 7y ago
      Thanks for the ICANN info, I'll prepare a similar form for them. Do you have some resources I can use to summarize ICANN's questionable activities?
      • ptest1 7y ago
        The former CEO of ICANN basically started the PE firm PIR was “sold” to: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/11/isoc-pir-ethos-capital-deal-timeline/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/11/isoc-pir-... ICANN, by lifting the price restriction, was likely “in” on this deal. When a nonprofit does something to greatly enrich a former CEO, that’s likely self dealing and illegal in the IRS’ eyes. The CA attorney general should also take action (ICANN is CA based).
• jonnypotty 7y ago
  Its fine because we're good and we get more money and Ethos are just simply good guys so that's good and nice so I voted "Yay" and now things are better because my organisation can keep me in a good job doing basically nothing whilst corporations buy up and exploit the internet.
• jobigoud 7y ago
  Whatever he thinks of Ethos or the statements they are making isn't relevant anyway. It's a private firm, it can be itself bought and sold, acquired, merged, etc. What happens if Google or Facebook or whatever suddenly wants to control .org? They just have to shell out a few millions?
• mcguire 7y ago
  "Because that is where the money is."
• leoedin 7y ago
  What is it with international supervisory bodies and blatant corruption (or maybe incredible incompetence)? This has real parallels to the International Olympic Committee and FIFA. I guess the parallels for all of them are a monopolistic position (and in many cases an essentially government granted one) with basically no oversight. Those conditions just seem to breed corruption.
• stefs 7y ago
  fair is fair, so i vote for selling .MIL and .GOV to a for-profit company. brb, i'll make one. i promise not to hike prices too much (in the first year).
• Ericson2314 7y ago
  Happy Thanksgiving! Why do I have to wake up to this horseshit.
• folio 7y ago
  Please, Barnes' "reasoning" is not naiveté. Barnes and his colleagues understand exactly what they are doing. The Barnes article is evidence of nothing but contempt for its intended audience.
• rileytg 7y ago
  this is dystopian. is there anything we can do? i can’t think of anything... government won’t help, the org which we trusted to protect .org is the one screwing it, are we completely powerless? if this battle is lost, what greedy move can they make next? how can we get ahead of that now?
  • evross 7y ago
    Another post mentioned that this may be self-dealing. This comment they linked has information on complaints/actions that can be taken: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324
• jl6 7y ago
  This is so monumentally wrong that I have to wonder whether some kind of class action lawsuit is inevitable. As the owner of a .org domain name, I feel duped. I thought I was dealing (ultimately, not counting intermediate registrars) with a non-profit organisation that had some permanent commitment to the public good. Now I’m just renting from a landlord whose interests are guaranteed to be the opposite of mine.
• lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  The only thing I got out of that was "we want money." There's no real justification for what they did. What's worse, and also condescending, is the crap about taking Ethos at their word. So let me get this straight; you typed out all these words to hide your real intentions (you want money) and we're now supposed to trust you vouching for a private equity firm? Please. Get the hell out of here. Put some more effort into your schemes.
• huhtenberg 7y ago
  > Many of the current concerns about .org are premised on a presumption that prices will rise No, they are based on the fact that it was clearly a backroom deal with no due process that would've NEVER happened if the seller wasn't closely associated with the buyer.
• peterwwillis 7y ago
  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, and can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. I've seen people experience it. You may not care about this person's welfare, but you should, if you want to be an ethical human being. It also doesn't help any idea you think you have, but it reinforces you emotionally to believe it, even on the really rare chance that you might not have expert information, and are just reacting to your limited understanding of a subject. And it galvanizes opinions (your own, and of others) because of how the emotion and anger is shared by so many people. It makes you believe all the things people are saying, and you don't even stop to think critically. I know, because I too have decided to agree with the crowd here before when they dog-piled on others, only to find out the opinion everyone had (including my own) was pitifully inaccurate. I later wanted to provide some correction, but good luck fighting a mob when it wants to feel right.
  • fractalf 7y ago
    I agree that in general name calling and personal attacks are no good. BUT, the word used in this thread aren't that harsh, come on. We're not made of glass. If you make a really idiotic choise don't cry when someone calls you an idiot.
  • dboreham 7y ago
    Unfortunately gaslighting evil intentioned people take advantage of sentiments like these.
  • zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    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.
• cbkeller 7y ago
  I think it's worth noting some of the timeline of this [1]: > On May 13, 2019, ICANN announced that they would remove the price cap on .org registrations (despite 98% disapproval in public comments [2]) > On May 14, 2019, the private equity firm Ethos Capital was founded by former ICANN chief executive Fadi Chehadé and investor Erik Brooks. > On November 13, 2019, it was announced that the Public Interest Registry (that manages .org) had agreed to be acquired by Ethos Capital, as its first investment. > Subsequently, PIR announced it would abandon its non-profit status to become a B Corporation. Is the author unaware of this, in on the deal, or just remarkably naive? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry [2] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_shambles/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_s...
  • ramphastidae 7y ago
    Of course they are aware. This post is PR bullshit to cover up the facts you mentioned.
• whydoyoucare 7y ago
  It is not only naive, there is the classic "appeal to authority" fallacy in the mix too! Someone wanted to badly do some damage control, which does not seem to have achieved it purpose. And yes, as someone stated, privaty equity companies want to make money from their investments, believing anything else as their "goal" is utter foolish.
• rinze 7y ago
  > If we take Ethos at their word This guy must be new to this whole Crony Capitalism thing.
• unexaminedlife 7y ago
  It's obvious the author and apparently their entire board didn't believe their role was an important one. In the end it sounds like whoever was doing the voting ended up putting the wrong people in charge. Would be useful to have a public reference listing the names of those who made this vote so future non-profits don't make the same mistake.
• netfl0 7y ago
  Limit price increases to 10% a year!!?!??! Tone deaf AF. I cannot believe someone actually wrote that down.
• mariuolo 7y ago
  This looks like a puff piece masquerading as blog entry.
• tzs 7y ago
  I wonder what Network Solutions thinks of this? If you register a .org through them, they offer 100 year registration for $999. The registries do not allow a domain to be registered for more than 10 years in the future, so the way NS implements this is by initially registering it for 10 years for you, and then automatically registering an additional year each year. That only works out for NS if prices don't rise too much over the next 100 years. I haven't read their terms to see if they have some sort of escape clause to get out of the 100 year deal if prices rise too much.
  • miles 7y ago
    Some thoughts on Network Solutions' 100 year offer: The 100 year domain: legal or not? https://www.tnl.net/blog/2004/03/23/the-100-year-domain-legal-or-not/ https://www.tnl.net/blog/2004/03/23/the-100-year-domain-lega... 100-Year Domain Renewals? https://yro.slashdot.org/story/04/03/23/0235244/100-year-domain-renewals https://yro.slashdot.org/story/04/03/23/0235244/100-year-dom...
• gorgoiler 7y ago
  How can you let market economics mix with something as basic as where your organization registers its name? Perhaps private equity could also take control of oxygen supply? If prices get out of control, perhaps the market will make other respirable gases available? I’m sure I’ll regret writing something so emotive, but I really resent being backed into what feels like could easily be labeled a loony-left corner on this debate. Is this .org sell off an exercise in driving those who lean even slightly towards moderately left economics into insanity, incapacitating them?
• 0x0aff374668 7y ago
  the author can't even be bothered to implement proper TLS/HTTPS on their website (Mozilla blocks it)... and they voted for domain names?
• christiansakai 7y ago
  This is the first time in many years on HN I see HN commenters commented unequivocally 100% against the author.
• timwaagh 7y ago
  There is a reason the author is on the board that gets to decide this. I wish the relevant people would just pocket the money and book a plane ticket to an offshore location, rather than bragging about it on social media. That way at least some people other than the hedge fund would get something out of this deal. I can understand simple corruption. I too need a fast-ish sportscar and a decently sized mansion to fuel my habits. But this, I cannot understand at all.
• cannedslime 7y ago
  Hoping for "just" a 10% price hike annually is like hoping that a mugger just steals your phone and wallet instead of stabbing you in the gut.
• driverdan 7y ago
  I'm surprised no one mentioned that Barnes works for Cisco: > Richard Barnes is Chief Security Architect for Collaboration at Cisco Cisco has had backdoored equipment and far too many security vulnerabilities. They supply equipment to suppressive regimes like China, allowing these countries to block, filter, and monitor internet traffic in an effort to suppress human rights. Someone who works for a company like that should not be trusted with important decisions related to fundamental parts of the internet.
  • rasz 7y ago
    Up next "We are excited to announce Cisco acquisition of Let's Encrypt".
• DoctorNick 7y ago
  Privatizing previously public services have always turned out badly. This will be no different.
• jiofih 7y ago
  Judging by the numbers, you can guess they sold for somewhere in the $100m-$1B range. Hard to resist. And also known as corruption, when it comes to public services.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• jmccorm 7y ago
  It seems like a slap across the face that they offer as a defense a 10% increase which compounds annually. That isn’t a defense... it is a stunning illustration of the problem! Even the cable companies would be jealous (while their own customers are cutting the cord left and right). Worse, 10%/year isn’t a contractual limitation; it is but a statement of “intent”. It is nothing short of malfeasance to have sold a non-profit’s operations without sufficient safeguards. And to a private equity firm? Outrageous incompetence if not criminal in action. His article doesn’t justify the transaction or allay reasonable concerns. In fact, he seems to be presenting the case for why this transaction is crooked if not criminal!
• purple_ducks 7y ago
  Looks like OP is based in Washington D.C. Guess he was feeling left out when it came to all the lobbying money and croney corruption. Strange he never addressed the fact that a new non-profit wasn't set up to control the domain.
• not2b 7y ago
  You can never take a corporation at its word. If you relied on promises that you obtained (limits on price increases, etc) you should have gotten all of that language into a legally binding contract. Even if current management of Ethos is committed to what you say they promised, management changes, companies run into trouble, and future management may come under pressure to extract more revenue. Also, what's the justification for 10% annual increases? Their costs aren't going up faster than inflation.
• jakeogh 7y ago
  Bad move: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/29/why-is-america-giving-up-control-of-icann https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/29/...
• slantedview 7y ago
  Giving a monopoly to a private company that is only interested in maximizing profit will end badly. This is obvious. The author is deluding himself to think any other outcome will happen.
• rocky1138 7y ago
  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.
  • fanf2 7y ago
    PIR already outsourced the .org registry operations to Afilias years ago
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• jacobmalthouse7 7y ago
  Why The .ORG Sale is a Radical Departure that Puts the Internet at Risk. https://link.medium.com/sDWjTdnxZ1 https://link.medium.com/sDWjTdnxZ1
• jaclaz 7y ago
  Out of curiosity, did anyone actually ask expressly Richard how he voted and why he voted this way? I mean, escusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E) or "he who excuses himself, accuses himself"
• glitcher 7y ago
  I would love to see the author do an AMA here and attempt to address all the counter-arguments in this thread!
• rdiddly 7y ago
  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 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.
• jacob-malthouse 7y ago
  One of the big issues with this post is that it is trying to sell the terms of the deal. But the issue people have with it in the Internet Policy Community is not the terms, which we no nothing about. It is that the way it was done is a radical departure from how decisions are normally made. Usually you start by saying "I have a problem". In this case it would be "We don't want to run .ORG anymore." And then you engage the community in an open bottom-up consultative process to come up with the optimal solution. ISOC applied to run .ORG in 2002. They won a competition to run it against 10 other groups. Here is the original application they submitted to ICANN: https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/ https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/ They said things like: "PIR will institute mechanisms for promoting the registry's operation in a manner that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and views of the non-commercial Internet user community." And: ".ORG is the home of non-commercial entities on the Internet" https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section8.html#c38E1 https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/isoc/sect... After running .ORG since 2002, and growing it to over 10 million domains under management under this promise, ISOC's Board suddenly and with no prior consultation, decided to privatize it. They took that decision in a private negotiation over less than 3 months. That decision making process is not how the Internet maintains a stable and secure infrastructure. It needs careful decision making to ensure reliable, stable, and resilient operations.
• nealabq 7y ago
  The Netherlands chapter of the ISOC is objecting to the .ORG sale ( https://domainnamewire.com/tag/internet-society/ https://domainnamewire.com/tag/internet-society/ ): We believe that the 2019 decision of ISOC Global to sell PIR to private equity firm Ethos Capital is not in line with ICANN’s criteria from 2002 and the subsequent promise from ISOC Global. Despite ISOC Global’s assurances to the contrary, we share the misgivings of the international community about giving a single privately owned entity the power to raise tariffs, implement rights protection mechanisms possibly leading to censorship, and suspend domains at the request of local governments. We also fear that ISOC Global’s reputation has been severely harmed by even contemplating this transaction. We therefore call on ISOC Global’s leadership to reverse this decision immediately, and do its utmost to restore faith in ISOC as the one global organisation that through its many professionals and dedicated volunteers sincerely strives for an internet for everyone.
• musicale 7y ago
  This is nonsense; it ignores the huge conflicts of interest and the obvious elephant in the room: nobody is going to pay a lot of money for something unless they expect to get a lot of money out of it, and the only way to get a lot of money out of .org is to extract it from the largely non-profit .org domain holders.
• musicale 7y ago
  > 10% per year AKA doubling every 8 years.
• jacobmalthouse7 7y ago
  SaveDotOrg.org is a great place to start following this issue. Lots of nonprofits organizing to defend .org.
  • dang 7y ago
    I appreciate your concern for this issue, and to judge by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677 and the current thread it seems clear that most of HN agrees with your view. But it's against the rules of this site to use it primarily for political advocacy, which is probably why your comments are being flagged. If you want to use HN in its intended spirit, you're welcome to! That's described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html is summed up by the phrase intellectual curiosity.
    • jacob-malthouse 7y ago
      ok got it!
• choiway 7y ago
  This article just makes matters worse. Saying nothing would have been better. Not selling would have been the best. This seriously falls in the "I didn't know you could do that category" for me.
• dewey 7y ago
  I'm kind of amazed that this website (http://www.circleid.com http://www.circleid.com) is not served via https and even the login is posted to a http endpoint. There's even a redirect from https to http. You would think that "A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments" would be on top of that.
  • rezonant 7y ago
    This also raised my eyebrows -- I don't even see the redirect, I just get broken HTTPS if I try to use it. In 2019 (almost 2020!) no website should be served over plain HTTP let alone have broken and nonfunctional HTTPS.
  • sireat 7y ago
    Perhaps there is even a place to get a reasonably priced certificates. How about free ones? Richard, maybe you could suggest such a place? /s Considering "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" tone of the post, the inner conspiracy theorist in me starts to wonder if "Let's Encrypt" is as benign in the long run as it seems.
• M2Ys4U 7y ago
  I'm worried that somebody with staggering naivete like this is on the board of Let's Encrypt as well. I wonder if he'd have the same lack of qualms about selling that to a private equity firm...
• coleifer 7y ago
  Whatever man, this is straight up grimy and both parties disgust me.
• Kakadoo 7y ago
  Andre Sullivan of ISOC needs to resign. ISOC international needs to get rebuild based on integrity and trust.
• iamleppert 7y ago
  “Limiting price increases to only 10% per year” Let that sink in for a minute. In only 10 years, it’s going to cost 10x what it does today to register A NAME. Technology was supposed to prevent things like this, not enable it.
  • 22c 7y ago
    Your math is off, but yeah. It's exponential growth.
• wyclif 7y ago
  Anyone care to give an analysis of how this will affect small-timers who want to register .org domains in the future in comparison to registering a different top-level domain?
• jacob-malthouse 7y ago
  If you want to complain to ICANN about the sale you can do it here: https://survey.clicktools.com/app/survey/response.jsp https://survey.clicktools.com/app/survey/response.jsp
• jacob-malthouse 7y ago
  ISOC CEO does not consider the public reaction or petition significant. He stated that a mere 10,000 signatures when there are millions of .orgs indicates lack of public concern or any serious opposition to the deal. Ethos Capital paid $1.135 billion for total, unconditional, purchase of the PIR from ISOC. ISOC just "grabbed the opportunity when Ethos presented it," ISOC have reviewed Ethos’s governance plans and approved them, but will have no means to enforce compliance with those plans. The deal must be approved by the end of the 1st Quarter 2021 or it fails. The exact date is still confidential. It must be approved by two bodies – ICANN and the Pennsylvania Orphans Court, which is a specialist court for estates and trusts. The PIR is incorporated in Pennsylvania and this court must approve changes in the PIR charter in order for Ethos Capital to take ownership. This is because “the Orphans’ Court judge is the ultimate defender and protector of the fund in question, and the Orphans’ Court will protect that fund and ensure that the fund is distributed to the correct beneficiary” There is a good introduction to this court at https://www.skhlaw.com/pennsylvania-orphans-court-101-all-the-basics-you-need-to-know-before-venturing-in/ https://www.skhlaw.com/pennsylvania-orphans-court-101-all-th... This means that if the Pennsylvania Orphans Court has not reached a determination by 1st April next year, or if that decision is being challenged in a manner which delays implementation, the deal fails.