6 ms·

Open question for HN: When evaluating how much to trust a person in a business relationship, when is it wise it to consider A. The person's past actions B. Th

Open question for HN: When evaluating how much to trust a person in a business relationship, when is it wise it to consider A. The person's past actions B. The intent behind those actions C. What they say now about those past actions ?

globular-toast 6y ago
Irrelevant question. This isn't about private business relationships, it's about a non-profit organisation entrusted with sole authority over public infrastructure.
- ben_w 6y ago
  And this is an important distinction because? He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet. Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused. It would not just be unreasonable, for a rehabbed offender, but also stupid. The people who know the ins and outs of systems are the ones best placed to suggest improvements to the status quo. I wouldn't think this necessary to be explained on Hacker News, but here we are.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - afarrell 6y ago
      > rehabbed This is the core of my question C -- Is it reasonable to judge someone's current trustworthiness by what they say about their past actions?
boomboomsubban 6y ago
When you're a private enterprise you're free to do as you wish. When you control basic necessary infrastructure, you need to set and abide by any limits based on such things.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Not normally there is the "fit and proper persons" test for company directors.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  The question is asking when is it wise to (privately) do any of those particular actions.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Which I find an odd topic of inquiry in this thread.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      It’s bizarre anyone could have a reason to find that odd, since there could scarcely be any topic more directly and irrefutably related to this thread (regardless of one’s take on whether ICANN acted inappropriately). You’re essentially saying, “I have a different system of logic from the common one, and I want my system of logic to be considered the right one. So I’ll just treat it as ‘irrelevant’ as a baseless gainsaying rebuttal to anyone else’s line of thinking.” How very whiny.
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        I wonder if the concept of general availability from GPL is applicable here. If ICANN's DNS system wasn't generally available, like, say, invite-only system, maybe they would be in their right to moderate based on feels.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
ThePadawan 6y ago
If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place? Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Enforcing contracts is expensive, and if someone obtains a significant amount of goods and services the money may not be recoverable even if there's a contractual ability to do so (as it doesn't exist), people may simply go on the run, people may engage in outright fraud. Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.
- mrfredward 6y ago
  Contracts are sometimes a useful deterrent, because going to court sucks and can cost you a lot of money. They're also not a replacement for trust, because going to court sucks and can cost a lot of money.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  If your last 3 orders of Amazon didn't arrive and you had to sue them to get the money back, will you order there again or will you first try somewhere else? Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.
- cjg 6y ago
  The contract is mostly there so that it's clear what each party is trusting the other to do. Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.
- afarrell 6y ago
  > If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place? Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer. I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Lets follow this logic - are mobile phone providers free to deny service to people that critisize them publically for traking their movemwnts and selling data? Can they collate a blocklist of people they don't like and make sure you get no service anywhere? Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same? Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them? You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both
- notahacker 6y ago
  Let's follow the logic the other way: does someone with multiple fraud convictions have an inalienable right to a merchant account and a massive line of credit? Perhaps, in the interests of personal liberty, hospitals should be obliged to grant witch doctors and those guilty of gross medical malpractice a salary and the right to use their operating theatre? Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    If there are doctors guilty of medical malpractice, at some point they were not detected. And Sunde already has IP-registration business since 2017: https://njal.la/ https://njal.la/
  - salawat 6y ago
    Is there moral character clause in the requirements? When I looked into it, the reaqs were mostly operational/technical. If there is no moral clause, and all other criteria are met, then I question the legitimacy of the declining. If there is a moral clause, then I'd like to know on what grounds.
  - 6y ago

globular-toast 6y ago

Irrelevant question. This isn't about private business relationships, it's about a non-profit organisation entrusted with sole authority over public infrastructure.

ben_w 6y ago
And this is an important distinction because? He’s been denied accreditation for his business to resell certain domains, not kicked off the internet. Would it not be reasonable for, e.g. a publicly owned national electricity grid to refuse to accredit a new energy business which is run by someone who previously published “how to circumvent your electricity meter”? I don’t even know if such a thing would be illegal to publish, but even if it isn’t illegal, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused.
- toyg 6y ago
  > I don’t think it’s unreasonable for accreditation to be refused. It would not just be unreasonable, for a rehabbed offender, but also stupid. The people who know the ins and outs of systems are the ones best placed to suggest improvements to the status quo. I wouldn't think this necessary to be explained on Hacker News, but here we are.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - afarrell 6y ago
    > rehabbed This is the core of my question C -- Is it reasonable to judge someone's current trustworthiness by what they say about their past actions?

boomboomsubban 6y ago

When you're a private enterprise you're free to do as you wish. When you control basic necessary infrastructure, you need to set and abide by any limits based on such things.

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Not normally there is the "fit and proper persons" test for company directors.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
The question is asking when is it wise to (privately) do any of those particular actions.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Which I find an odd topic of inquiry in this thread.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    It’s bizarre anyone could have a reason to find that odd, since there could scarcely be any topic more directly and irrefutably related to this thread (regardless of one’s take on whether ICANN acted inappropriately). You’re essentially saying, “I have a different system of logic from the common one, and I want my system of logic to be considered the right one. So I’ll just treat it as ‘irrelevant’ as a baseless gainsaying rebuttal to anyone else’s line of thinking.” How very whiny.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      I wonder if the concept of general availability from GPL is applicable here. If ICANN's DNS system wasn't generally available, like, say, invite-only system, maybe they would be in their right to moderate based on feels.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago

ThePadawan 6y ago

If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place? Contracts are written and signed to ensure that trust isn't necessary, because the contracts can be enforced.

Mindwipe 6y ago
Enforcing contracts is expensive, and if someone obtains a significant amount of goods and services the money may not be recoverable even if there's a contractual ability to do so (as it doesn't exist), people may simply go on the run, people may engage in outright fraud. Trust is vital in a business relationship. Contracts are a useful backup against a legitimate body, but they are not much use against someone who has literally a proven track record of going on the run from law enforcement.
mrfredward 6y ago
Contracts are sometimes a useful deterrent, because going to court sucks and can cost you a lot of money. They're also not a replacement for trust, because going to court sucks and can cost a lot of money.
alpaca128 6y ago
If your last 3 orders of Amazon didn't arrive and you had to sue them to get the money back, will you order there again or will you first try somewhere else? Trust may not be necessary on paper but it is a huge competitive advantage, and a strong distrust is a total dealbreaker for most potential business partners.
cjg 6y ago
The contract is mostly there so that it's clear what each party is trusting the other to do. Enforcing a contract is often not worthwhile.
afarrell 6y ago
> If you're conducting a business relationship, why are you talking about trust in the first place? Please don't downvote /u/ThePadawan for this. It is an important foundational question. It is a hard question to answer in the same way that "If you're forging steel, why are you talking about iron crystal structures in the first place?" is a hard question to answer. I'd be keen to read an answer from someone more articulate than I.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Lets follow this logic - are mobile phone providers free to deny service to people that critisize them publically for traking their movemwnts and selling data? Can they collate a blocklist of people they don't like and make sure you get no service anywhere? Can Banks, insurance firms, water and electricity companies do the same? Can they phone up your internet provider and offer to pay them twice whatever you pay just to terminate you internet connection? Doesn't the internet provider have the right to choose whatever is best deal for them? You can either have personal libery or corporate liberty, not both

notahacker 6y ago
Let's follow the logic the other way: does someone with multiple fraud convictions have an inalienable right to a merchant account and a massive line of credit? Perhaps, in the interests of personal liberty, hospitals should be obliged to grant witch doctors and those guilty of gross medical malpractice a salary and the right to use their operating theatre? Freedom to act and freedom not to contract sometimes conflict, and contrary to some people's beliefs, it is possible to assess things on a case by case basis. In this case, being an ICANN-accredited registrar doesn't seem to obviously be an fundamental right, and convictions for IP-related crimes doesn't seem like particularly unreasonable grounds for not giving someone a rare level of privilege in the IP-registration business.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  If there are doctors guilty of medical malpractice, at some point they were not detected. And Sunde already has IP-registration business since 2017: https://njal.la/ https://njal.la/
- salawat 6y ago
  Is there moral character clause in the requirements? When I looked into it, the reaqs were mostly operational/technical. If there is no moral clause, and all other criteria are met, then I question the legitimacy of the declining. If there is a moral clause, then I'd like to know on what grounds.
- 6y ago