24 ms·
Internet Society told to halt .org sale by its own advisory council
- scarejunba 7y agoWell, I have to say I'm quite proud of everyone who stood up and made a fuss over this. It is blatant corruption. Keep the good fight going, folks!
- ce4 7y ago> Was... Is it over yet? From how i read it, no: '[The internet society] will vote this month on whether to approve a formal recommendation that the society “not proceed [with the sale] unless a number of conditions are met.”'
- use-net 7y agoSo Wall Street wants to rip off RedCross.org That is just what bankers do, no? Whatever happened to unfettered capitalism?
- rocqua 7y agoThose conditions require the release of new information and, I would assume, re-scrutinizing the decision based on that new information. This information should reveal that indeed this is a fraudulent sale. If the information does not reveal that, there is less of a reason for blocking the sale. Really, what should be reversed is the decision to remove price-hike caps on the .org TLD.
- scarejunba 7y agoThanks, edited. Didn't mean to imply it's over.
- notlukesky 7y agoSnake biting it’s own tail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
- metaphor 7y agoSo if I'm understanding this correctly...even if the Chapters Advisory Council formally recommends NOGO on the sale (which they haven't officially voted on yet), ISOC would not be legally bound in any way to bend the knee, and a hypothetical board decision to move forward with the sale anyways--assuming ICANN blessings--would risk organizational implosion stemming from the rage of its chapters followed by unfolding of a fragile justification for its tax exempt charity status?
- matthewheath 7y agoYes.
- mxuribe 7y agoThis whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
- squiggleblaz 7y agoThe alternative is your ISP suddenly decides that google.com directs to one of their servers.
- blowski 7y agoI'm pretty sure there's more than one alternative.
- mxuribe 7y agoI've heard of handshake...but were you referring to something else? If so, please share, I'm genuinely curious.
- antsar 7y agoUS ISPs already do this in order to inject ads, which is why you have to use 3rd-party DNS servers. Wouldn’t be anything new.
- mxuribe 7y agoMy isp (Verizon) already"conveniently" provides a landing page whenever I typo a web address(or there us some dns miss, etc.)...so your concept is (sadly) here-and-now, and not a far off thing.
- willart4food 7y agoOnce the deal goes through someone from the ISOC will be getting a high-paying job at Ethos. Wait for it . . .
- grumple 7y agoAlready happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital
- dwnvoted2hell 7y agoIsn't this level of quid pro quo corruption punishable? Or does nobody even care anymore?
- grumple 7y agoSeems like nobody cares in the US... I mean, when the highest officer in the land is pardoning politicians convicted for corruption, who cares about the law?
- TheFiend7 7y agoEveryone is in bed with each other. They all inside trade, they all bribe each other for different leverages. And a lot of plebeians support it ironically.
- FireBeyond 7y agoAnd that's what we know about. Other people involved had their names redacted from the proposal, for some unknown reason...
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoIf this sale is successfully prevented, the next step needs to be to identify and purge ISOC and ICANN of anyone who negotiated or advocated for this deal. Not just because of the corruption issue, but the pure lack of good judgment. I keep thinking about the fact that first, ICANN was freed of it's tie to the US government, and since then, it's been business deal after business deal to corrupt the domain system.
- dpau 7y agoSo a purge isn't sufficient. Any lasting change would require a complete restructuring of the organizations in question.
- sebazzz 7y agoWe shouldn't be surprised. The whole TLD debacle has been a bit cash grab, which hasn't been beneficial to anyone but a few. Take the subsequent acquired domain of ".dev" by Google for instance, which then reserved it for internal usage only.
- packetlost 7y ago.dev is available for public registration... I have one.
- aaronchall 7y agoDitto.
- echelon 7y ago"vanity" domains are $200/yr or more Including "{firstname}.dev" Nonsense. If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer? FCFS is fairer than extortion.
- Buttons840 7y ago
- stjohnswarts 7y agoThis whole thing is ridiculous. It makes me both laugh and cry. Selling org to an "unavailable name" private equity firm is just ironic to the extreme.
- NotSammyHagar 7y agoIt's worse than ironic. It's crony capitalism. An inside deal with no benefit to external people, where the transaction will make money for the insiders. It's all hidden because it's corrupt.
- bunchOfCucks 7y agoThat sucks for the free market
- haidersf 7y agoI wonder if this is a deliberate strategy ... I .e. first advisory council halts, does their DD, and then says its all good... which they can then point to and create a defense. Prob not the case but can't rule anything out.