3 ms·

Operating .org in the public interest in the past doesn't mean that it has zero value today. "The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows" not so much that

Operating .org in the public interest in the past doesn't mean that it has zero value today. "The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows" not so much that "[ISOC is] operating it in the interest of the ISOC" but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest. How is ISOC a dubious charity?

LegitShady 7y ago
>but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest. Oh who did this organization with a duty to steward .org for public interest sell it to? How can you separate that duty from the action of selling it to a third party without that duty? It's an interesting hair to split.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  That's fair, but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped when they sold it to a party that looks set not to. "They were so good right until the point where they stopped being so good."
  - LegitShady 7y ago
    >but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped The action selling it to another org without that duty is abdication of that duty and they should not have had authority to sell it. The specific circumstances only make it worse.
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      Talk about not responsive. All you did here is restate your previous point.
      - LegitShady 7y ago
        All you did was state that their previous actions aren't proof of the future, when we are talking about them having sold .org already. Their abdicating stewardship to a group that doesn't have a duty to steward is evidence enough and saying "well they used to" is off topic and not interesting. No need for new arguments when you have none.
        cryptonector 7y ago
        Previous to selling it.
        LegitShady 7y ago
        Who cares? The act of selling it to someone without the obligation to steward is an abdication of that obligation. and talking about precious years is just off topic and unrelated to the issue at hand.
ohashi 7y ago
Someone dug into their expenses, 69% overhead. https://twitter.com/ferdeline/status/1199380702233612288 https://twitter.com/ferdeline/status/1199380702233612288
- cryptonector 7y ago
  Do you know what ISOC does? It's a non-profit, yes, but it's not a charity. It exists to make things like the IETF and IRTF, and related administrative groups run. That's it. Of course its expenses are going to be mostly overhead -- what else would they be given their mission?
  - gowld 7y ago
    "mission-related" work is a separate category from "staff travel" aka vacations.
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      The staff travels because they host conferences around the world several times a year. Conferences I've attended many times, and which are more than full work days for the attendees and the staff. Typically a day at an IETF meeting starts at 9AM, officially ends at 5PM, but then side meetings, bar BoFs, impromptu hackathons, and so on, will take you to near midnight almost every day -- it's exhausting (the staff probably doesn't work such long days, but ISOC officers probably do). There is no time left for sight-seeing, except maybe on the one night where there is a social event. They host conferences around the world because attendees to the conferences in question are from around the world, and because ISOC wants to attract more of them. I'm prepared to listen to real arguments about why ISOC sucks. But yours are either uninformed or you're not explaining them well enough. My bet is on the former. ISOC is not a charity, just a non-profit, and they've done quite well at keeping the IETF/IRTF and related groups going for decades. Another thing you need to understand is that most SDOs (standards developing organizations) are pay-to-play. ANSI, OASIS, IEEE, Unicode Consortium, ... -- all pay-to-play. IETF? Free to participate. You don't even have to go to the meetings. Sure, participation == time == money, but being so accessible is a wonderful thing, and it takes an ISOC to keep it so.

LegitShady 7y ago

>but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest. Oh who did this organization with a duty to steward .org for public interest sell it to? How can you separate that duty from the action of selling it to a third party without that duty? It's an interesting hair to split.

cryptonector 7y ago
That's fair, but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped when they sold it to a party that looks set not to. "They were so good right until the point where they stopped being so good."
- LegitShady 7y ago
  >but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped The action selling it to another org without that duty is abdication of that duty and they should not have had authority to sell it. The specific circumstances only make it worse.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    Talk about not responsive. All you did here is restate your previous point.
    - LegitShady 7y ago
      All you did was state that their previous actions aren't proof of the future, when we are talking about them having sold .org already. Their abdicating stewardship to a group that doesn't have a duty to steward is evidence enough and saying "well they used to" is off topic and not interesting. No need for new arguments when you have none.
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        Previous to selling it.
        LegitShady 7y ago
        Who cares? The act of selling it to someone without the obligation to steward is an abdication of that obligation. and talking about precious years is just off topic and unrelated to the issue at hand.

ohashi 7y ago

Someone dug into their expenses, 69% overhead. https://twitter.com/ferdeline/status/1199380702233612288 https://twitter.com/ferdeline/status/1199380702233612288

cryptonector 7y ago
Do you know what ISOC does? It's a non-profit, yes, but it's not a charity. It exists to make things like the IETF and IRTF, and related administrative groups run. That's it. Of course its expenses are going to be mostly overhead -- what else would they be given their mission?
- gowld 7y ago
  "mission-related" work is a separate category from "staff travel" aka vacations.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    The staff travels because they host conferences around the world several times a year. Conferences I've attended many times, and which are more than full work days for the attendees and the staff. Typically a day at an IETF meeting starts at 9AM, officially ends at 5PM, but then side meetings, bar BoFs, impromptu hackathons, and so on, will take you to near midnight almost every day -- it's exhausting (the staff probably doesn't work such long days, but ISOC officers probably do). There is no time left for sight-seeing, except maybe on the one night where there is a social event. They host conferences around the world because attendees to the conferences in question are from around the world, and because ISOC wants to attract more of them. I'm prepared to listen to real arguments about why ISOC sucks. But yours are either uninformed or you're not explaining them well enough. My bet is on the former. ISOC is not a charity, just a non-profit, and they've done quite well at keeping the IETF/IRTF and related groups going for decades. Another thing you need to understand is that most SDOs (standards developing organizations) are pay-to-play. ANSI, OASIS, IEEE, Unicode Consortium, ... -- all pay-to-play. IETF? Free to participate. You don't even have to go to the meetings. Sure, participation == time == money, but being so accessible is a wonderful thing, and it takes an ISOC to keep it so.