Posts by Yes Me

Re: The basic problem

ICANN has been controversial since Day One (in 1998). Nothing changed when the final contract between ICANN and the US Government lapsed, because ICANN had always been expecting that to happen. It caused less disruption than the Y2K fizzle.

Many people criticise ICANN, me included. But most of what it's done was going to happen anyway, because like it or not we live in a world governed by free market economics. Change that, and ICANN will change in response.

Re: If I had the money....

But you don't have the money. That is the entire point. If you don't like the fact that DNS registration is a privatised money-making business, please complain to the Clinton Administration in 1998 and stop them from privatising it.

Re: This looks shady....

You should really look at the facts before starting to libel people.

No. ISOC remains a non-profit and pays its staff fairly, like any non-profit must.

Re: I'm also wondering what a non-profit organisation will do with $1.14bn ...

Or you could consider the facts (the money will go into an endowment fund to finance ISOC's work for the indefinite future).

Re: Breach of trust.

Well, no, there was no breach of trust and no broken promise, despite the polemics that have been floating around. .org has been supporting ISOC financially for many years. Nothing new here, unless you're only just discovering that name registration has been a profit-making business since 1998.

And the "news" story you are commenting on is highly suspect:

"...the two men who subsequently agreed the secret sale of .org..."

If it was secret, why was it announced in a press release? This is just playing with words to make a non-existent point.

Re: What a load of bull

You appear to believe in magic. All a registrar does is maintain a list of names. "Stewardship" seems to contain some moral content but there isn't any: it's only a list of names. If you don't like the charge for keeping "myvanityname.org" on a list, go and get it for less money as "myvanityname.co" (which was the cheapest on offer when I looked a couple of days ago).

So yes, a load of bull.

Re: Most people don't care one way or another.

Exactly. The fact is that the US Govt created a competitive free market in top-level domain registrations in 1998 and we've lived with it ever since. In the big scheme of things, this sale is a tiny detail.

Re: Self serving SOB

ISOC didn't go looking for a buyer and they obviously couldn't discuss the deal in public before the handshake, as for any other negotiated deal. If you bought or sold a house in your life, did you place a newspaper article about the price negotiation?

The ISOC CEO is salaried, of course, but the Board isn't and there are no shares.

Re: Because an open and transparent auction wouldn't have maximised the value at all!

"Will the board suddenly get a very large bonus...?"

No. If you read the ISOC's Articles of Incorporation, you'll see why not. It's a non-profit and the Board members aren't paid a cent.

Unlikely...

"It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created."

That was Postel's view in 1994. By 1998 when he died, he knew that new TLDs had become inevitable, mainly due to the Clinton Administration, and Ira Magaziner in particular, who were trying to move the Internet from governmental to commercial hands.

Re: I agree

Which TLD did he think was a better fit for non-profits?

That's irrelevant. The point is that .org was never intended to be exclusively for non-profits, and the letter from non-profits essentially claims that it was. In most circles that's known as a lie.

Re: "Is ISOC 'severely harming' its reputation"

I suspect that ISOC cares a lot about its reputation, but please note that it's been living off .org registration revenue for many years, and the deal (if it closes) will effectively convert that revenue stream into an investment fund. ISOC will then live off the returns from that fund until IPv6 addresses run out.

Whether Ethos runs .org ethosically (sorry) is a separate question.