3 ms·
>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
by 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.