10 ms·

I can't see any way selling .org from a non-profit to a commercial entity who is profit motivated makes sense at all. In online debates a decade or more ago, I

• koolba 6y ago
  > I can't see any way selling .org from a non-profit to a commercial entity who is profit motivated makes sense at all. It’s not about making sense. It’s about making dollars.
  • DeathArrow 6y ago
    >It’s not about making sense. It’s about making dollars. Now it started making sense!
• ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  You may note that ICANN only really got into these sorts of games after gaining independence from the US government...
  • echelon 6y ago
    Why did we let the ICANN go? Could we take it back? Wasn't Verisign a problem before ICANN became a non-government entity?
    • wavesquid 6y ago
      Because other governments found it unfair that one country (the US) could control the global namespace.
      • notyourwork 6y ago
        And now look at how many TLDs we have.
        • notechback 6y ago
          What's so bad about having maths TLDs?
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
          • Causality1 6y ago
            People having a passing familiarity with all the TLDs increases security. You know to trust Microsoft.com but it would be easy trick someone into clicking a link to Microsoft.c0m or some such.
            • quickthrower2 6y ago
              There is no c0m but it’d be more like Microsoft.ninja or Microsoft.fun
              • SCHiM 6y ago
                Microsoft.trust?
                • agustif 6y ago
                  micro.soft
                • quickthrower2 6y ago
                  Then I know I’m being phished!
            • deleted 6y ago
              [deleted]
  • tal8d 6y ago
    Bingo. Consider this in the context of the "bake my cake bigot!" debate. It is really disturbing, the glee with which some have adopted the "private companies can do what they want" in defense of censorship. While the US government has certainly come close to wrecking the internet in the past (see 90s moral panic staring Tipper Gore), there is at least the possibility for transparent accountability. Most people have no idea how bad things could get under the present arrangement, with self restraint being the only thing standing in the way. Debanking, early crypto folks know what I'm talking about.
    • fortanatude 6y ago
      >> "bake my cake bigot!" debate What do you mean by that?
      • jldugger 6y ago
        They are referring to the supreme court case revolving around a bakery in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake if it was going to be served at a gay wedding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
      • tal8d 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... So many angles to consider, even before addressing the issue of publisher vs platform... but in essence the same people decrying that ruling are applauding the deplatforming and debanking of wrongthinkers.
        • fortanatude 6y ago
          Sure, I've never heard it described that way. That makes it sound like the point of asking to be served is to punish and frustrate the bakery. I've never heard civil rights protests called the "serve my lunch racist!" debate. The sentiment behind the phrase "bake my cake bigot!" seems to trivialize the issue of being discriminated against by a public business and incorrectly attributes malice to the person being discriminated against. I'm not attributing any ill-intent to you but wanted to give feedback on that terminology which is why I asked the question. Thanks for your response.
  • rasengan 6y ago
    Interestingly, this act itself proves that whilst the US DOC was, and claimed, to have moved ICANN to international ownership [1], it is in fact still under the control of the US government. As long as the Internet namespace, or DNS, is governed by US (California state specifically) law, the Internet itself will be operating under the same jurisdiction as DNS is generally considered critical to the function of the Internet. This is a very strong reason that, just like currency [2], the Internet namespace is also ripe to be decentralized to distributed ownership by the people [3]. The internet deserves to be owned by the people - not any single government. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN [2] https://weusecoins.com https://weusecoins.com [3] https://handshake.org https://handshake.org
    • qeternity 6y ago
      And like currency, it turns out that it's almost impossible to have a fully decentralized, trustless system for all but the most basic functions. Maybe you prefer that to the current system, but it's not like handwavingly suggesting blockchain makes any of this better. There are all sorts of real-world issues that you can't handle on-chain.
      • rasengan 6y ago
        > There are all sorts of real-world issues that you can't handle on-chain. There are definitely a lot of issues that aren’t working in the ICANN system as we all know [1][2][3]. What are the issues that can’t be handled in the Handshake blockchain ecosystem? [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise-alarm-over-proposal-for-big-com-fee-hikes/%3Famp%3D1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship-halting-private-equity-buy-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbit... [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/symantec-issues-rogue-ev-certificate-googlecom https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/symantec-issues-rogue-...
        • acdha 6y ago
          It’s easy to say that a hypothetical system will do everything you want, similar to how Bitcoin salespeople spent most of a decade saying it’d be better than cash and credit cards before trying to claim they’d had different goals all along. You first need a system which works and scales to plausible levels before we can say anything about whether it’s a viable solution for anything. In particular, it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control — and the inherent inefficiency of a blockchain means that there’d be more of a likelihood that power would consolidate in a few major players. (As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be?)
• willvarfar 6y ago
  There are precedents. I stopped buying National Geographic magazine when the Society sold it to Fox. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-magazine-shifts-to-for-profit-status-with-fox-partnership/2015/09/09/7c9f034e-56f0-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geog... > On Wednesday, the iconic ­yellow-bordered magazine, beset by financial issues, entered its own uncharted territory. In an effort to stave off further decline, the magazine was effectively sold by its nonprofit parent organization to a for-profit venture whose principal shareholder is one of Rupert Murdoch’s global media companies.
  • realityking 6y ago
    Looks like that stake went to Disney when most of Fox was sold to them. Interesting.
    • kozhevnikov 6y ago
      It's on all Disney+ ads. https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg https://i.imgur.com/avn5ck8.jpg
  • chapium 6y ago
    I hear magazine and tv divisions are still very much separate.
    • willvarfar 6y ago
      It’s still commercial. I was buying the mag because I was happy that the profits went to the researchers in jungles all over the world etc. I loved the nature and antiquity and exploring stories that used to dominate. Steadily through the 2000s I found more and more stories that I skipped because they felt political and us-centric. And then the sale? That was enough.
      • ethbro 6y ago
        Did you ever get a copy of Nat Geo Adventure / Traveler? It was one of the sub-magazines that proliferated (probably as they were trying to keep the print business alive). Grabbed a couple in an airport, but they seemed more interesting and focused than the main one.
• C1sc0cat 6y ago
  Member of a past bidder for .org here (Poptel) 1 .org is not a non profit and is not just for us style "non profits" 2 What ICANN (or ICANT as those of us that have had dealings with them call it) stinks to high heaven. What should happen is a proper transparent biding process which is how it used to be done.
  • belorn 6y ago
    If icann is broken, which it seemingly is given this catastrophe handling of .org, then the solution is pretty obvious. Remake icann with a strong and clear purpose and goal of making the internet infrastructure more stable and safer. Selling off all the different part of icann to for-profit companies will have the usually effect when the goal become to farm taxes on commons.
• tinus_hn 6y ago
  Then again you probably aren’t at the receiving end of that cool one billion dollars!
• charlesdm 6y ago
  I don't agree with it, but the reasoning goes like this: It makes sense for both parties because for the seller the investment gains from the capital they're getting from this transaction will be similar to what they're making from running the registry. But they no longer have the headaches of running the registry. For the buyer, well, it's a monopoly so the sky is the limit. Even if current seller is able to raise the prices, they might not want it due to the backlash this would cause. Current buyer is less constrained by this.
• gorgoiler 6y ago
  Their argument is that .org is akin to a school owning large playing fields in the middle a rapidly expanding city. Selling off some or all of an asset that has become unexpectedly valuable can fund the organisation’s wider mission with a windfall endowment. No one buys such an argument in this case because, just as sports are a big part of school, so too is it ICANN’s core mission to provide equitable access to names in TLDs — or at least that’s what most people would say it is. (Apologies if this ruffles the feathers of anyone fighting a school playing field sell off battle, especially if you also own yourschool.org too.)
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    That's a good analogy IMO, they put short time finance above the altruistic aims they're supposed to engender. At least the school do it for the students, and not to enrich private individuals.
• leetcrew 6y ago
  I'm not sure much of value is lost. the .org TLD has not been a strong signal of credibility for some time now. for example, "4chan.org" has been registered since 2004. AFAIK, there has not been any requirement to actually show that the registrant is a non-profit for decades. with the possible exception of .gov (and local equivalents), people should not be encouraged to use TLDs as a positive signal of credibility. imo, the only things that matter are that domain should point to the expected entity (eg, wellsfargo.com points to the bank, not a phishing site) and that disputes over who gets to use a specific domain get handled in a reasonable way.
  • sbarre 6y ago
    You point to one example (4chan) yet there are probably hundreds of thousands of counter-examples of usage of ORG domains. There is no perfect solution of course, but generally speaking ORG domains have been used to signal that you are an organization vs. a corporation, and potentially a non-profit. That said, just like in the real world, individuals are encouraged to do their research and confirm that one is what they claim to be (just like door-to-door charity workers) before engaging.
    • leetcrew 6y ago
      > There is no perfect solution of course, but generally speaking ORG domains have been used to signal that you are an organization vs. a corporation, and potentially a non-profit. this is the convention, but I don't think it's ever been enforced by the registrar. see questions 5, 7, and 8 on this archived faq: https://archive.is/20120716084313/http://pir.org/get/faq/general%23q7 https://archive.is/20120716084313/http://pir.org/get/faq/gen... what I'm getting at is: if ICANN never enforced the convention in the first place, and they are selling it to someone else who also doesn't intend to enforce it, what should I expect to change? when it comes to security in particular, conventions that are usually (but not always) followed are often worse than having no convention at all. it sets dangerous expectations for lay people.
      • sbarre 6y ago
        > what I'm getting at is: if ICANN never enforced the convention in the first place, and they are selling it to someone else who also doesn't intend to enforce it, what should I expect to change? I think the biggest concern with this sale is around pricing more than "correctness of use", where I agree with you the ship has long sailed. Selling PIR to a for-profit company, a private equity firm no less, means you can pretty much 100% guarantee that in the future pricing would be increasingly profit-driven.
• ajnin 6y ago
  When you know that Ethos Capital (that wants to buy .org) was co-founded by an ex-ICANN CEO, and that it employs several other former high-ranking ICANN staff, then it starts to make a lot of sense.
  • bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
    Corruption in centralized entities isn't a question of if - it's a question of when.
    • powowowow 6y ago
      Also true in decentralized entities.
    • aidenn0 6y ago
      And centralization of decentralized entities isn't a question of if - it's a question of when. Decentralization has so many downsides compared to centralization when things are going "right" that centralization has competitive advantages over decentralization.
      • banger180 6y ago
        Except that centralization will eventually give rise to corruption =p. It's and endless debate I guess. But for an organization like ICANN my vote goes to decentralization.
  • rattray 6y ago
    Fascinating. Source?
    • mayank 6y ago
      The wikipedia page has a bunch of sources in the references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital
• matheusmoreira 6y ago
  After seeing all this corruption, I started putting a lot more trust in ccTLDs. Hopefully OpenNIC and Tor will become more popular in the future.
• badrabbit 6y ago
  ICANN is no longer under american control I thought?