4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoTalk about not responsive. All you did here is restate your previous point.
- LegitShady 7y agoAll 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 agoPrevious to selling it.
- LegitShady 7y agoWho 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.