3 ms·

Ah, so the owner of .org in Handshake is completely unbound by any rules or regulations, and can charge whatever they want for any domains beneath it? Isn't th

by jude- 7y ago

Ah, so the owner of .org in Handshake is completely unbound by any rules or regulations, and can charge whatever they want for any domains beneath it? Isn't that the entire problem of the .org sale -- the wanna-be new owners want to buy it and then rent-seek on it?

rasengan 7y ago
Since TLD ownership will no longer be difficult (ICANN forces a 185k non refundable application fee just to see if you are eligible with no guarantees), people will have alternatives to .org, should .org continue to do what the people don’t want. The current ICANN system is essentially a monopoly that can raise prices to double revenue without paying mind to what the people of the internet have commented.
- jude- 7y ago
  The problem here isn't the lack of alternatives to .org, it's the rent-seeking on .org (brought about by a corruption). It sounds like Handshake does not address this problem.
  - rasengan 7y ago
    The problem isn’t just .org but instead you’ll have to look one step up - ICANN and the US government [1]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise-alarm-over-proposal-for-big-com-fee-hikes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise...
    - jude- 7y ago
      I can tell that you really want me to believe that ICANN and the US government are the problem, and that Handshake is the solution. But you still have not addressed how Handshake solves the three main problems I have with the .org sale: * The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect. * The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek"). * To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator. You have not convinced me that Handshake will address any of these things. Therefore, Handshake is not germane to the discussion of what to do about .org.
      - rasengan 7y ago
        > The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect. When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. Handshake absolutely makes TLDs a free market. > The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek"). I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled). > To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator. If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork. The people hold the power. Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it!
        jude- 7y ago
        > When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. > In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. I want .org name prices to remain capped at $10, and I want its stewards to take steps to ensure that there isn't a profit motive. That's a big part of what this uproar is -- lots of cash-strapped organizations whose Web presence depends on .org continuing to be operated as it was would harmed even if the prices of .org names were set by an idealized free market. This is not something Handshake addresses. > I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled). The "free-ness" of the market is orthogonal to the problem at hand. The problem here is corruption and rent-seeking. Handshake not only fails to address this, but also arguably makes it more prone to happen. > If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork. If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we wouldn't need Handshake. We'd just run an alternative DNS root, but with a governing charter that is less prone to corruption. No need to introduce a blockchain to solve a fundamentally social problem. This approach would also be highly disruptive and would hurt a lot of people over the course of its execution. Why are you so adamantly opposed to simply stopping the sale of .org to rent-seekers? Stopping the sale is, by far, the least painful and least disruptive solution. > Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it! Except, you haven't addressed a single one of my problems.
- danShumway 7y ago
  I can already migrate from .org to .com or other alternatives today. It's just that all of my links will break, my search engine placement will plummet, and users won't be able to find my site. If I'm using my domain as an identity indicator for email, it also opens the door for other people to impersonate me. The problem with the current system isn't that there aren't enough TLDs. There are tons of TLDs. The problem is that once you register a domain, you need to have permanent ownership of that domain. It doesn't matter if there are 5 thousand (or even 5 million) TLDs. Once I link a .com domain to my email, the .com owner has a monopoly over me. Handshake doesn't solve that problem. TLD owners will still be able to rent-seek, and they'll still hold monopolies over anyone who buys from them.
  - rasengan 7y ago
    > Handshake doesn't solve that problem. TLD owners will still be able to rent-seek, and they'll still hold monopolies over anyone who buys from them. This statement is cryptographically false. Handshake does give ownership of names in the form of TLDs to people and therefore, the owner of said TLD will not be subject to rent from name ownership. That being said, you are right that someone could still take a TLD and rent seek. Handshake benefits from not being monopolized in this process - you can always get your own TLD if you want to avoid this.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      Only for TLD owners. The moment I'm renting a subdomain under another person's TLD, the problem stops being solved. > people will have alternatives to .org, should .org continue to do what the people don’t want. Handshake does not address or solve the problem of domain migration in any way. If you rent a subdomain from a Handshake TLD owner, and they turn out to be evil, you are in the exact same position as you would be under a centralized system. If you want to get rid of that problem, the TLD registration needs to be robust enough that everyone -- even high-school kids, even poor people, even weirdos who own dozens of websites -- can buy their own TLDs for all of them. The "you'll just rent subdomains" argument for Handshake needs to go away.

by jude- 7y ago

rasengan 7y ago

Since TLD ownership will no longer be difficult (ICANN forces a 185k non refundable application fee just to see if you are eligible with no guarantees), people will have alternatives to .org, should .org continue to do what the people don’t want. The current ICANN system is essentially a monopoly that can raise prices to double revenue without paying mind to what the people of the internet have commented.

jude- 7y ago
The problem here isn't the lack of alternatives to .org, it's the rent-seeking on .org (brought about by a corruption). It sounds like Handshake does not address this problem.
- rasengan 7y ago
  The problem isn’t just .org but instead you’ll have to look one step up - ICANN and the US government [1]. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise-alarm-over-proposal-for-big-com-fee-hikes/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise...
  - jude- 7y ago
    I can tell that you really want me to believe that ICANN and the US government are the problem, and that Handshake is the solution. But you still have not addressed how Handshake solves the three main problems I have with the .org sale: * The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect. * The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek"). * To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator. You have not convinced me that Handshake will address any of these things. Therefore, Handshake is not germane to the discussion of what to do about .org.
    - rasengan 7y ago
      > The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect. When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. Handshake absolutely makes TLDs a free market. > The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek"). I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled). > To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator. If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork. The people hold the power. Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it!
      - jude- 7y ago
        > When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. > In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. I want .org name prices to remain capped at $10, and I want its stewards to take steps to ensure that there isn't a profit motive. That's a big part of what this uproar is -- lots of cash-strapped organizations whose Web presence depends on .org continuing to be operated as it was would harmed even if the prices of .org names were set by an idealized free market. This is not something Handshake addresses. > I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled). The "free-ness" of the market is orthogonal to the problem at hand. The problem here is corruption and rent-seeking. Handshake not only fails to address this, but also arguably makes it more prone to happen. > If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork. If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we wouldn't need Handshake. We'd just run an alternative DNS root, but with a governing charter that is less prone to corruption. No need to introduce a blockchain to solve a fundamentally social problem. This approach would also be highly disruptive and would hurt a lot of people over the course of its execution. Why are you so adamantly opposed to simply stopping the sale of .org to rent-seekers? Stopping the sale is, by far, the least painful and least disruptive solution. > Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it! Except, you haven't addressed a single one of my problems.
danShumway 7y ago
I can already migrate from .org to .com or other alternatives today. It's just that all of my links will break, my search engine placement will plummet, and users won't be able to find my site. If I'm using my domain as an identity indicator for email, it also opens the door for other people to impersonate me. The problem with the current system isn't that there aren't enough TLDs. There are tons of TLDs. The problem is that once you register a domain, you need to have permanent ownership of that domain. It doesn't matter if there are 5 thousand (or even 5 million) TLDs. Once I link a .com domain to my email, the .com owner has a monopoly over me. Handshake doesn't solve that problem. TLD owners will still be able to rent-seek, and they'll still hold monopolies over anyone who buys from them.
- rasengan 7y ago
  > Handshake doesn't solve that problem. TLD owners will still be able to rent-seek, and they'll still hold monopolies over anyone who buys from them. This statement is cryptographically false. Handshake does give ownership of names in the form of TLDs to people and therefore, the owner of said TLD will not be subject to rent from name ownership. That being said, you are right that someone could still take a TLD and rent seek. Handshake benefits from not being monopolized in this process - you can always get your own TLD if you want to avoid this.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Only for TLD owners. The moment I'm renting a subdomain under another person's TLD, the problem stops being solved. > people will have alternatives to .org, should .org continue to do what the people don’t want. Handshake does not address or solve the problem of domain migration in any way. If you rent a subdomain from a Handshake TLD owner, and they turn out to be evil, you are in the exact same position as you would be under a centralized system. If you want to get rid of that problem, the TLD registration needs to be robust enough that everyone -- even high-school kids, even poor people, even weirdos who own dozens of websites -- can buy their own TLDs for all of them. The "you'll just rent subdomains" argument for Handshake needs to go away.