
Save .ORG from Arbitrary Censorship by Halting the Private Equity Buy-Out - nayuki
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship-halting-private-equity-buy-out
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677)

------
jancsika
I'm very curious to know what Wikipedia's position on the sale is, esp. given
they will be directly affected.

Jimmy?

~~~
iudqnolq
How will Wikipedia be directly affected? Do you mean they have a .org domain?
Even if the cost goes up significantly, given their other expenses I doubt
even a few thousand dollars a year would matter much to them.

~~~
nayuki
The article emphasized the problem of censorship, not price. Some relevant
quotes:

> Registries have the power to suspend domain names, or even transfer them to
> other Internet users, subject to their contracts with ICANN. When a domain
> name is suspended, all of the Internet resources that use that name are
> disrupted, including websites, email addresses, and apps. That power lets
> registries exert influence over speech on the Internet in much the same way
> that social networks, search engines, and other well-placed intermediaries
> can do.

> As the new operator of .ORG, Ethos Capital would have the ability to engage
> in these and other forms of censorship. It could enforce any limitations on
> nonprofits’ speech, including selective enforcement of particular national
> laws.

> Since many NGOs are engaged in speech that seeks to hold governments and
> industry to account, those powerful interests have every incentive to buy
> the cooperation of a well-placed intermediary, including an Ethos-owned PIR.

~~~
matheusmoreira
This is a very serious concern. Many web sites ended up censoring themselves
at the whims of advertisers. All it takes is a little pressure from the people
with money: "I don't like this .org web site and I can't associate with a
registrar that allows it to exist".

------
buboard
isn't ICANN known to be a very corrupt organization? I m not sure i want DNS
to be saved, i d rather it be replaced with something distributed like ens

~~~
zenexer
ENS has its own issues. For example, sometimes government and law enforcement
oversight of DNS is a good thing, especially in the context of malware. In my
experience, for every sensational account of abuse, there are dozens or
perhaps hundreds of cases in which the centralized nature of DNS is used for
good (in a manner that isn't controversial). There are also cases like
trademark disputes; those are definitely a lot more controversial, but there's
definitely an argument to be made that allowing someone other than Google to
purchase goolge.anything (intentional typo) is probably going to cause more
harm than good.

If we want to replace DNS, we're going to need a system that's both resistant
to abuse and fixes the problems with DNS in its current form. Every proposal
I've seen, including ENS, just swaps out existing problems for new problems.

~~~
robcohen
If you’re trying to solve malware at the DNS level, you’ve already lost. In
this particular case, it’s far more likely that keeping the state out of DNS
management is a good idea. A stronger argument is trademark infringement and
consumer protection, but even this does not seem worth dealing with a human
arbiter.

