7 ms·
California Attorney General delays .org sale
- koolba 7y agoIt’s nice to read some good news for a change. From the article: > The current deadline for ICANN to approve or deny the sale is February 20. It is asking Public Interest Registry to extend this to April 20 as a result of the attorney general office’s request. > This is perhaps the biggest wrinkle so far in Internet Society’s plans to sell the registry for $1.135 billion to a private equity company. Are the details outside the amount public and is there any clawback amount if the deal does not go through?
- bibinou 7y agoAG Letter is page 3 of this pdf: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-nevett-30jan20-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey...
- DrJosiah 7y agoIf anyone doesn't think the AG is serious, read the document request / questions at the end. Someone on the tech side is giving advice :)
- sunstone 7y agoIt really looks like this sale is dead in the water now, and that's a good thing.
- yborg 7y agoI don't know how you can conclude that. To stop it they would need to challenge it in court and they're up against a potential profit here that can afford any number of big-gun law firms. I don't know the law here, but that's what will determine if this scheme succeeds, and hard proof that this sale violates such applicable laws.
- ev0lv 7y agoI mean, you're in the territory of a non-profit entity being used to generate profit for a few individuals through corruption. The AG has a lot of pull here.
- syshum 7y agoSource? All that has happened right now is some Bad PR and some suspect dealing that may or may not be grey area legal... with Billions and Billions of dollars on the table I dont think some Bad PR is going to stop this deal. Unless there is an actual court order or a official ICANN document blocking the sale it is still moving forward
- jdkee 7y ago"35. Your conflict of interest policy."
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoAfter the long list of extensively specific requests for details regarding the sale and the price cap removal and communications between each of these organizations, point 35 felt like a punchline to read. It makes it clear they know exactly what issue they're sussing out with these requests.
- londons_explore 7y agoDoes a conflict of interest actually make something illegal? I was under the impression that while best practice to declare and avoid conflicts of interest, it was not actually illegal as long as the motives for each decision were defensible.
- dchyrdvh 7y ago35 isn't a request, but a message from a powerful politician to the people behind the sale. It's hard to guess the exact meaning without full context, but I think it's "I know enough. If you want to proceed with the sale, you have to give me the names and I'll send some of them to prison." They may try to call his bluff, but they'll be sorry if he indeed knows something.
- lmkg 7y agoConflict of interest may not generally be illegal, but it can be illegal under specific circumstances, especially if undisclosed. Especially things that get filed with the SEC. I would assume a lot of decisions made at the board and C-suite level have stricter requirements for this.
- jjeaff 7y agoI believe a 501c3 is bound by their charter which would presumably include this conflict of interest policy. Not doing so could cause loss of non-profit status and probably other fines and penalties.
- JohnFen 7y agoThis is welcome news. Perhaps there's a slim glimmer of hope here.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoAlso on The Register: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/31/icann_dot_org_sale/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/31/icann_dot_org_sale/
- ISO-morphism 7y agoFrom the AG letter: > 24. If ICANN approved the removal of the price cap for registration fees for .org domains, provide a detailed explanation how this occurred, including when and who initiated the process to remove the price caps and how it was ultimately approved; ... > 35. Your conflict of interest policy. I think it's a good sign they're asking for specific individuals. Really looks like they're not fooling around.
- waynesonfire 7y agoI also like, > 16. Did ICANN ever conduct or review any analysis of the monetary value of the .org Registry Agreement? If yes, provide all documents regarding such analysis
- FireBeyond 7y agoI'd love it if they required the de-redaction of some of the individuals involved. I think that could prove entirely enlightening to some of the _real_ motivations at play.
- ISO-morphism 7y ago> 5. PIR's unredacted response to ICANN's request for additional information regarding the acquisition of PIR by Ethos Capital > 27. Identify all individuals at ICANN involved in analyzing and/or making recommendations regarding the removal of the price cap for .org domains Seeing the words "unredacted" and "individuals" makes me hopeful for this. Feels like they're saying "not gonna fly" to "orders were orders." > 34. Provide the names and contact information of all of ICANN's members of its Board of Directors, including all non-voting members And at the same time no to "it was a rogue employee "
- ajnin 7y agoLooks like the AG is considering that case seriously, they're asking a very extensive list of information, including information on how the decision to remove price caps was made, the names if individuals involved, and confidential details of the deal with Ethos Capital. They definitely already studied the case to ask the pertinent questions. Hopefully this is treated as seriously as it is for the Internet and any decision where corruption was involved, or that is detrimental to the interests of non-profits, is not allowed to go through.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoIt looks like this scheme is going to collapse now. The next important thing is to reinstate the price caps.
- zaphirplane 7y agoWhat i would like to understand is what’s California jurisdiction is
- dylz 7y agoICANN HQ is in Los Angeles, as a minimum
- lmkg 7y agoFrom the letter the AG sent: > *The Office of the Attorney General has the duty to supervise charitable organizations under [law#]. The [ICANN], as a registered nonprofit in California, is subject to regulation by the California Attorney General. Sort, IANAL answer: They are incorporated in California, making their corporate conduct subject to California's laws. Source: This PDF, starting on page 3. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-nevett-30jan20-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey...
- donmcronald 7y ago> If it gets the answers it demands, it will get much more information than ICANN has previously disclosed about the process and thinking behind removing price caps on .org domain names last year. If?
- type0 7y agoHere's the audio interview with one of the ISOC trustees attempting to defend his vote for the sell https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200115/11301343739/techdirt-podcast-episode-234-mike-godwin-defends-selling-org.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200115/11301343739/techd... His mental gymnastics there are just incredible.
- fladrif 7y agoMike Godwin make several claims that the only way for the .org tld to survive is that it requires capital to improve. Another point that is repeated is that PIR (current owner of .org) is constantly making a surplus of money. The reasoning for this disparity is that a non-profit cannot use money it generates to improve itself. Is this a valid point, and if so why?
- toomuchtodo 7y agoWhat improvement of a utility is required? Insert records, update records, serve records. Fin. This is Let’s Encrypt non profit operational model territory, $3-4 million/year at most.
- waynesonfire 7y agoif they're getting a surplus of money, they should then lower their prices.
- labster 7y agoNonprofits in California are allowed to take out loans to acquire capital. They are also allowed to spend money to improve the service they offer in the furtherance of their tax-exempt purpose, so long as the capital expenses don't count as self-dealing (like the .org sale, allegedly). There's no legal basis for either of those claims. The thing they can't do is go out and sell equity for VC money on their core purpose, or exceed the legal threshold for unrelated business income. But neither should be necessary to improve the nonprofit, especially given that it already has a surplus of money.
- 7y ago
- cosmodisk 7y agoCan anyone give some pros and cons on each side of this?
- freehunter 7y agoOf selling the .org registry? Pro: ICANN can make a shitload of money. Con: .org domains get a shitload more expensive.
- vajrabum 7y agoCon: a private equity firm potentially gets to control who gets .org domains. That probably shouldn't be a private decision at all.
- ShorsHammer 7y agohttps://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=icann%20org&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Few dozen hours of reading in there.
- jacobreg 7y agoHow does the jurisdiction work on this? Presumably not all regions of all countries involved in ICANN have this power.
- lmkg 7y agoICANN is incorporated in California.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoCan someone help me understand why a domain name still costs $10-$13 a year to own? Even with so many tlds (presumably competition) it’s still expensive. Why?
- woodandsteel 7y agoThe question is what the private equity firm will do with .org that it thinks will earn a good profit on the 1.145 billion it is investing. And would that leave the internet better or worse off. Did ICANN even ask that question?