7 ms·

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

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."
- agwa 7y ago
  In practice, this says the same thing. There's no reason for registrars not to let their customers lock in the low price for 10 years. There's stiff competition among registrars and their margins on domain name sales are razor thin. They make their money by selling various add-on services. It's better for them if registry prices are low because that encourages people to buy more domains, and thus more add-on services. For example, Namecheap came out strongly against removing .org price caps: https://www.namecheap.com/blog/ensuring-icann-keep-domain-prices-in-check/ https://www.namecheap.com/blog/ensuring-icann-keep-domain-pr...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lacker 7y ago
    The registrar can simply raise the registration price of Wikipedia.org to a million dollars a year, and keep the random ones the same price, to extract any value from .org websites that rely on their domain name. The 10% a year is not a legal commitment, just an easily breakable informal promise.
    - agwa 7y ago
      If their registrar did that, Wikipedia would change registrars to one that didn't - and they'd be able to keep their .org. There's competition among registrars, unlike registries.
  - simonh 7y ago
    Their margins on new domain sales are thin, but the cost of changing domain names for a big owner of a prestigious .org domain could be huge. So jack up the renewal price to gouge existing domain owners, then drop the prices again to entice in new registrants.
TumorousJoker 7y ago
It's just funny to me that he felt the need to start listing out his credentials before explaining his stand.
- simias 7y ago
  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.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    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.
    - simias 7y ago
      If anything it makes it worse, he can't plead ignorance.
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Yeah, his argument and conclusion are so bad that they're more likely to make me do a double-take on the value of his credentials.
- andrewprock 7y ago
  The funny thing is that despite his credentials, he made such a spectacular blunder. It makes one wonder when the other shoe will drop for "Let's Encrypt".
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    Well, they already only take bug reports from people who enter into a contract with Microsoft!?
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
> I would encourage people to look at what Ethos themselves have said about their intentions with regard to .org > Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year Just that statement alone means prices could double every 7 years.
simias 7y ago
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 revenue on a single business". So you are staked so heavily in a single business that instead of using the income and stability it provides to diversify you just get rid of it altogether? Utter nonsense. That's just greed and short-term gains. I hope this is naivety and not pure gaslighting.
- dpau 7y ago
  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"?
  - dpau 7y ago
    LOL "The Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people’s lives, and a force for good in society. Our work aligns with our goals for the Internet to be open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy. We seek collaboration with all who share these goals. Together, we focus on: Building and supporting the communities that make the Internet work; Advancing the development and application of Internet infrastructure, technologies, and open standards; and Advocating for policy that is consistent with our view of the Internet" https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/ https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/
  - cbkeller 7y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry
ailideex 7y ago
> > 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. I'm kind of a conservative (read classical liberal) free market kind of guy - but this is a total shit-show IMO. I simply don't see anything that will prevent market failure in this case - there is nothing I can see that incentivises good behavior.
- ben509 7y ago
  > there is nothing I can see that incentivises good behavior. Competition with all the other registries? For the most cost sensitive domain owners, they typically have a presence on social media and contact with users via email. And, of course, they're usually discovered by search engine rather than domain. So the switching costs are quite low and the demand extremely elastic.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    A domain only has One registry
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    How much would it cost society as a whole if WikiPedia switched away form .org? Think of all the printed links, now defunct. Think of the value of that domain to an occupant with less scruples, once left behind. The confused people who will find themselves on a WikiPedia-esque, ad and scam ridden copy. And that’s just WikiPedia. This is a shitshow of historic proportions for the internet as a whole. It will be remembered as a landmark in the ever metastasising cancer of monetisation that is suffocating the World Wide Web from within.
    - ben509 7y ago
      Not all consumers are equal. Wikipedia sized organizations would easily absorb the relatively trivial cost, so, they wouldn't switch. Their demand is relatively inelastic to price. The people switching are going to be the far more numerous smaller operations, who are elastic to price. And, of course, anyone signing up for a new domain is highly elastic. Because there are lots of people who are highly elastic, the overall demand is highly elastic.
sojmq 7y ago
The author is not naive. He is most likely malicious.
wpietri 7y ago
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 raised a proper endowment. Or they could have kept .org and bumped the prices modestly so it made a profit equivalent to what an endowment would pay. Selling it to a PE company is guaranteed to be worse for .org registrants, because the amount of money extracted will be greater, and a PE firm will be way less accountable. Especially a shadowy one just created for this. And for those not familiar with the horrors of PE, I recommend reading about what happened to Simmons Mattress once the financial engineers got a hold of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmon...
- Danieru 7y ago
  Sounds like what happens with drugs. The big name pharma companies avoid getting their names dirty by selling drugs to corps willing to bump prices past the absurd. I sure hope the author got a kickback since his decision was not for the benefit of others. Only worse thing than corrupt board member, is a fool given authority.
- ttul 7y ago
  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.
  - ppf 7y ago
    Because it's harder to justify being the person who raises prices that much, while claiming to "enable the internet for all" or whatever their mission statement is. With the right PR, you can sell out and try and keep a straight face.
Thorrez 7y ago
>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.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  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 cash. Now that means they've lost out on $37,800,000 from the price hikes but that was collected over the next ten years and assumes that all of those domains would have continued for ten years. They've no choice now; the money is paid. If Ethos lose another 10% of org registrations because people don't want to pay the increased cost, that leaves 12,348,000 domains left. Assume another 10% of those either don't renew for some other reason or renewed for more than one year but less than ten. Now you're at 11,113,200 remaining domains that, in the year after the announcement, bring in an additional $50,009,400. So just by announcing a price hike and not-so-subtly encouraging domain owners to "take advantage to lock in today's price for years to come," Ethos bring in $75,209,400 with two-thirds of that being new recurring revenue and the remaining third suitable for distribution as bonuses to all of the executives who made such a clever scheme what it is.
  - Symbiote 7y ago
    It occurs to me that I should probably extend all the .org domains I control (for a non-profit) to 10 years, now.
    - techsupporter 7y ago
      I have three org domains I really care about and have already bumped them out as long as currently-PIR will let me. Sucks to have to but two of these domains are so old, I have no idea what all would break if I let them go.
jmull 7y ago
You're very nice, because "naive" is a very generous interpretation.
tekkk 7y ago
Without explicit agreements/laws in place I have to sadly agree, and any natural monopoly will get abused at some point if owned by profit-seeking companies. That's just how it is. Doesn't matter if they are now sweet-talking you into doing this deal, the fact is that once they are in the position of power, they can do whatever they want. Of course there are some limits what the customers can take, but when their end-goal is maximizing profit extraction it's just dumb to assume it will be all butterflies and rainbows. As an example if you even need any, the government of Finland decided to let government-majority owned electricity company (Fortum) to sell off their electricity distribution (Caruna) to some private investors. I don't know what the investors promised but quickly after the deal was made, the prices started to rise, the company structure was made that the company in Finland is paying ridiculously high interest rates (8.5%) on loans to some Dutch holding company, with an effective tax rate of couple %. And even in general, why do they have to sell .org? I don't see any concrete benefits whatsoever for the normal user.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago
  Yes unless it's regulated, any monopoly that is "for profit" will want to maximize profits. So they will walk the balance beam between raising prices and buying lawyers and lobbyists to insure congress critters don't regulate them.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
The last time .org was up one of the bidders considered that Oxfam and redx (red cross ) where not valid users of .org At the time I worked for one of the bidders Poptel, so I got to hear a lot of the inside stories
- anoncake 7y ago
  I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that Something like: Oxfam is a fundraising organisation that just does enough charity work to generate photos for their marketing. It’s a long way from what most people believe a charity is - volunteers doing good works and raising money to directly buy the supplies and equipment.
Mikhail_K 7y ago
> This author is just outright naive. No, it's you who is being naive. The author is a sly fucker who adeptly spins his atrocious sell-out.
- dang 7y ago
  Please follow the site guidelines when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
scandox 7y ago
I agree the author seems very naive and you're right to zone in on the only substantive thing he did say. However I'm still unclear about some points. For example can they sell oxfam.org from under Oxfam's nose? How does that work?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  They can't "sell it from under their nose", they just can demand any renewal price for it they like, and delete the domain if that price is not being paid.
  - scandox 7y ago
    Ok so they can arbitrarily set a unique price for a specific domain?

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."

agwa 7y ago
In practice, this says the same thing. There's no reason for registrars not to let their customers lock in the low price for 10 years. There's stiff competition among registrars and their margins on domain name sales are razor thin. They make their money by selling various add-on services. It's better for them if registry prices are low because that encourages people to buy more domains, and thus more add-on services. For example, Namecheap came out strongly against removing .org price caps: https://www.namecheap.com/blog/ensuring-icann-keep-domain-prices-in-check/ https://www.namecheap.com/blog/ensuring-icann-keep-domain-pr...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lacker 7y ago
  The registrar can simply raise the registration price of Wikipedia.org to a million dollars a year, and keep the random ones the same price, to extract any value from .org websites that rely on their domain name. The 10% a year is not a legal commitment, just an easily breakable informal promise.
  - agwa 7y ago
    If their registrar did that, Wikipedia would change registrars to one that didn't - and they'd be able to keep their .org. There's competition among registrars, unlike registries.
- simonh 7y ago
  Their margins on new domain sales are thin, but the cost of changing domain names for a big owner of a prestigious .org domain could be huge. So jack up the renewal price to gouge existing domain owners, then drop the prices again to entice in new registrants.

TumorousJoker 7y ago

It's just funny to me that he felt the need to start listing out his credentials before explaining his stand.

simias 7y ago
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.
- ailideex 7y ago
  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.
  - simias 7y ago
    If anything it makes it worse, he can't plead ignorance.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    Yeah, his argument and conclusion are so bad that they're more likely to make me do a double-take on the value of his credentials.
andrewprock 7y ago
The funny thing is that despite his credentials, he made such a spectacular blunder. It makes one wonder when the other shoe will drop for "Let's Encrypt".
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  Well, they already only take bug reports from people who enter into a contract with Microsoft!?

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

> I would encourage people to look at what Ethos themselves have said about their intentions with regard to .org > Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year Just that statement alone means prices could double every 7 years.

simias 7y ago

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 revenue on a single business". So you are staked so heavily in a single business that instead of using the income and stability it provides to diversify you just get rid of it altogether? Utter nonsense. That's just greed and short-term gains. I hope this is naivety and not pure gaslighting.

dpau 7y ago
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"?
- dpau 7y ago
  LOL "The Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people’s lives, and a force for good in society. Our work aligns with our goals for the Internet to be open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy. We seek collaboration with all who share these goals. Together, we focus on: Building and supporting the communities that make the Internet work; Advancing the development and application of Internet infrastructure, technologies, and open standards; and Advocating for policy that is consistent with our view of the Internet" https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/ https://www.internetsociety.org/mission/
- cbkeller 7y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry

ailideex 7y ago

> > 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. I'm kind of a conservative (read classical liberal) free market kind of guy - but this is a total shit-show IMO. I simply don't see anything that will prevent market failure in this case - there is nothing I can see that incentivises good behavior.

ben509 7y ago
> there is nothing I can see that incentivises good behavior. Competition with all the other registries? For the most cost sensitive domain owners, they typically have a presence on social media and contact with users via email. And, of course, they're usually discovered by search engine rather than domain. So the switching costs are quite low and the demand extremely elastic.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  A domain only has One registry
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  How much would it cost society as a whole if WikiPedia switched away form .org? Think of all the printed links, now defunct. Think of the value of that domain to an occupant with less scruples, once left behind. The confused people who will find themselves on a WikiPedia-esque, ad and scam ridden copy. And that’s just WikiPedia. This is a shitshow of historic proportions for the internet as a whole. It will be remembered as a landmark in the ever metastasising cancer of monetisation that is suffocating the World Wide Web from within.
  - ben509 7y ago
    Not all consumers are equal. Wikipedia sized organizations would easily absorb the relatively trivial cost, so, they wouldn't switch. Their demand is relatively inelastic to price. The people switching are going to be the far more numerous smaller operations, who are elastic to price. And, of course, anyone signing up for a new domain is highly elastic. Because there are lots of people who are highly elastic, the overall demand is highly elastic.

sojmq 7y ago

The author is not naive. He is most likely malicious.

wpietri 7y ago

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 raised a proper endowment. Or they could have kept .org and bumped the prices modestly so it made a profit equivalent to what an endowment would pay. Selling it to a PE company is guaranteed to be worse for .org registrants, because the amount of money extracted will be greater, and a PE firm will be way less accountable. Especially a shadowy one just created for this. And for those not familiar with the horrors of PE, I recommend reading about what happened to Simmons Mattress once the financial engineers got a hold of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmon...

Danieru 7y ago
Sounds like what happens with drugs. The big name pharma companies avoid getting their names dirty by selling drugs to corps willing to bump prices past the absurd. I sure hope the author got a kickback since his decision was not for the benefit of others. Only worse thing than corrupt board member, is a fool given authority.
ttul 7y ago
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.
- ppf 7y ago
  Because it's harder to justify being the person who raises prices that much, while claiming to "enable the internet for all" or whatever their mission statement is. With the right PR, you can sell out and try and keep a straight face.

Thorrez 7y ago

>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.

techsupporter 7y ago
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 cash. Now that means they've lost out on $37,800,000 from the price hikes but that was collected over the next ten years and assumes that all of those domains would have continued for ten years. They've no choice now; the money is paid. If Ethos lose another 10% of org registrations because people don't want to pay the increased cost, that leaves 12,348,000 domains left. Assume another 10% of those either don't renew for some other reason or renewed for more than one year but less than ten. Now you're at 11,113,200 remaining domains that, in the year after the announcement, bring in an additional $50,009,400. So just by announcing a price hike and not-so-subtly encouraging domain owners to "take advantage to lock in today's price for years to come," Ethos bring in $75,209,400 with two-thirds of that being new recurring revenue and the remaining third suitable for distribution as bonuses to all of the executives who made such a clever scheme what it is.
- Symbiote 7y ago
  It occurs to me that I should probably extend all the .org domains I control (for a non-profit) to 10 years, now.
  - techsupporter 7y ago
    I have three org domains I really care about and have already bumped them out as long as currently-PIR will let me. Sucks to have to but two of these domains are so old, I have no idea what all would break if I let them go.

jmull 7y ago

You're very nice, because "naive" is a very generous interpretation.

tekkk 7y ago

Without explicit agreements/laws in place I have to sadly agree, and any natural monopoly will get abused at some point if owned by profit-seeking companies. That's just how it is. Doesn't matter if they are now sweet-talking you into doing this deal, the fact is that once they are in the position of power, they can do whatever they want. Of course there are some limits what the customers can take, but when their end-goal is maximizing profit extraction it's just dumb to assume it will be all butterflies and rainbows. As an example if you even need any, the government of Finland decided to let government-majority owned electricity company (Fortum) to sell off their electricity distribution (Caruna) to some private investors. I don't know what the investors promised but quickly after the deal was made, the prices started to rise, the company structure was made that the company in Finland is paying ridiculously high interest rates (8.5%) on loans to some Dutch holding company, with an effective tax rate of couple %. And even in general, why do they have to sell .org? I don't see any concrete benefits whatsoever for the normal user.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
Yes unless it's regulated, any monopoly that is "for profit" will want to maximize profits. So they will walk the balance beam between raising prices and buying lawyers and lobbyists to insure congress critters don't regulate them.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

The last time .org was up one of the bidders considered that Oxfam and redx (red cross ) where not valid users of .org At the time I worked for one of the bidders Poptel, so I got to hear a lot of the inside stories

anoncake 7y ago
I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that Something like: Oxfam is a fundraising organisation that just does enough charity work to generate photos for their marketing. It’s a long way from what most people believe a charity is - volunteers doing good works and raising money to directly buy the supplies and equipment.

Mikhail_K 7y ago

> This author is just outright naive. No, it's you who is being naive. The author is a sly fucker who adeptly spins his atrocious sell-out.

dang 7y ago
Please follow the site guidelines when posting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

scandox 7y ago

I agree the author seems very naive and you're right to zone in on the only substantive thing he did say. However I'm still unclear about some points. For example can they sell oxfam.org from under Oxfam's nose? How does that work?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
They can't "sell it from under their nose", they just can demand any renewal price for it they like, and delete the domain if that price is not being paid.
- scandox 7y ago
  Ok so they can arbitrarily set a unique price for a specific domain?