The travesty is that ISOC has given up a sure-fire stream of $55+ million/year in tax-free income, along with the ability to easily grow that to over $100m/year with price increases - all for just over $1.1 billion.
As any r/personalfinance reader can tell you a rule of thumb for endowments is to spend a maximum of 4% of your assets each year. This means $44m from the $1.1bn, which means ISOC is immediately worse off than they were forecasting for this year (~$55m). Alternatively use the Yale method, which in today's low-return market will yield similar or worse results.
Moreover it's clear that ISOC are not behaving as the sharpest of investors, so we can imagine that the endowment might be be poorly managed or over-spent.
From https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/11/isoc-pir-.... :
ICANN receives 3,300 comments uniformly opposed to the change and 6 in favor of removing price caps, and sides with the 0.2% minority.
PIR responded to the comments with an open letter that said,
“We are a mission-based non-profit, and would never betray the trust that you have put into .ORG and us.”
On 7 May, Chehadé registered the domain for EthosCapital.com.
On 13 May, ICANN decided to lift the price caps anyway.
On 14 May, Ethos Capital was incorporated as a new investment firm founded by Brooks. Ethos Capital has two staff: Brooks and Nora Abusitta-Ouri, a former ICANN SVP who later worked for Chehadé and was also a classmate of Chehadé."
Maybe people are protesting the wrong thing. The sale of .org is a symptom, the underlying cause is a bad regulatory framework for internet names.
There's no technical reason we can't have multiple systems for translating names into addresses. There's no longer any technical reason for having neatly organized dot separated addresses based on TLDs.
Allowing the translation of any text string into an address is entirely possible with present day computing power, and a truly distributed system similar to the global routing table would work to organize different providers announcing their own name domains.
Maintaining the old DNS TLD domains is stupid and subject to manipulation by corporations and corrupt politicians.
Like this sale.
The certificates are essentially a trusted authority saying cryptographically "we have verified this is really the person you think this name is" and that can be done for any identifier. Also, this system was set up before public key encryption became common, and there are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same function with PK crypto.
The buyer pays the NPV when operated as a profit focused enterprise, then insulates the ISOC from blowback when it actually does this.
The ISOC can then turn around and feign betrayal with the rest of us, its pockets full of money.
Which I think is pretty much things working as intended. And as a result, no they won't exactly be remembered forever but they don't get to go down the memory hole either.
But there's no reason that money can't go right back into basic infrastructure. For example, after the Heartbleed bug we learned that OpenSSL was receiving about $2k/year in donations. Surely there are obvious core open-source projects that could use reliable funding: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/tech-...
How is ISOC a dubious charity?
They host conferences around the world because attendees to the conferences in question are from around the world, and because ISOC wants to attract more of them.
I'm prepared to listen to real arguments about why ISOC sucks. But yours are either uninformed or you're not explaining them well enough. My bet is on the former. ISOC is not a charity, just a non-profit, and they've done quite well at keeping the IETF/IRTF and related groups going for decades.
Another thing you need to understand is that most SDOs (standards developing organizations) are pay-to-play. ANSI, OASIS, IEEE, Unicode Consortium, ... -- all pay-to-play. IETF? Free to participate. You don't even have to go to the meetings. Sure, participation == time == money, but being so accessible is a wonderful thing, and it takes an ISOC to keep it so.
Oh who did this organization with a duty to steward .org for public interest sell it to? How can you separate that duty from the action of selling it to a third party without that duty?
It's an interesting hair to split.
The action selling it to another org without that duty is abdication of that duty and they should not have had authority to sell it.
The specific circumstances only make it worse.
Their abdicating stewardship to a group that doesn't have a duty to steward is evidence enough and saying "well they used to" is off topic and not interesting. No need for new arguments when you have none.
and talking about precious years is just off topic and unrelated to the issue at hand.
I'd like to place this here for those who only read comments:
.org registry rights belong to a non-profit - the rights were sold to a private equity group - somewhere between 50% and 90% below market rate. It was based on self dealing of the people given stewardship of the non-profit that manages .org
Basically, this is privatization Russian style. Not good. Even if you like privatization, no-bid stuff is just wrong.
Want to help support the democratic institutions which hopefully won't fail us? Look here:
OT. Isn't 4% also the rule of early retirement, that is if you can live of 4% of your savings you can retire?
Can anyone clarify if this rule applies for both individual and corporate? If so, how would be even more interesting to know?
An immortal, such as a corporation, has to use a safer number, such as 3%, or 2.5% for operations and 0.5% in fees for the fiduciary management. So the permanent endowment needs to be 40x annual operating costs, and the fiduciary needs to grow it by 3% better than (price) inflation per year. That's relatively easy to do when most of the principal won't be touched within the next 30 years: buy all the publicly-traded stocks that have historically paid regular dividends, and reinvest whatever isn't paid out. On a long enough time scale, that's probably 7% better than inflation.
So the fiduciary could possibly be replaced by a robot that only needs 0.05% annually for maintenance, and then you'd only need to endow 34x annual operating costs to run forever.
The 4% spending ratio theoretically varies with market performance but evens out over time. 7-8% typical returns for a total market index/etf, minus a couple % to account for inflation.
As per Paul Graham:
I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
Forcing users to publicly display their opinion on a person's comment would be negative for many reasons, especially on a site like HN, where many people choose to be eponymous.
Also, note: most of the comments on the first page of your profile seem to be in the black, which means they weren't controversial enough to receive many (if any) downvotes.
I responded very matter-of-fact, pointing out that the sharp edges of Tesla's cybertruck are something that makes it more dangerous to pedestrians. I didn't add any flourish or snark or whatever and yet it went into the grey. That kind of voting behavior just gives me a giant question mark.. why would anyone be hostile to explanation via fact?
IMO any site with a voting system should attach a heavy cost to downvoting:
1. each downvote you do costs more - with a slow backoff timer
2. the more points you have, the more it costs to downvote
3. the more downvotes a comment has the more points it costs
This mirrors the real life cost in social interaction:
1. you can't constantly be negative to everyone
2. high status people can afford to do that more, but not infinitely
3. you can't pile on one person (or rather, with each person adding it nears the threshold of "wow, maybe that's enough, dude")
(Yes, I know, talking about voting vis-à-vis HN is discouraged, but it apparently does bother a rather large contingent of users)
I think 'dang has already elaborated as to why this is a bad idea, but:
Hacker News depends on downmods for community moderation. Discouraging them would lower the quality of the site.
Not to assume bad-faith, but this was a joke, wasn't it? A bad comment should be downmodded more, and users should not be penalized for that. Flagging, too, should happen if it's extremely bad.
If a person is only posting negative content, it makes sense that they would get downmodded more often: active users of the site will often see these people's comments more than others. Should they get punished for keeping the quality of the site up? I don't think so. That seems unreasonable.
That's completely unreasonable: if a comment is bad, it should be downmodded.
> "Are trucks more likely to hit pedestrians? I was not aware of big vehicles being more dangerous."
Its pretty blindingly obvious what I answered.
> Hacker News depends on downmods for community moderation. Discouraging them would lower the quality of the site.
But attacking facts literally lowers the quality of the site
> Not to assume bad-faith, but this was a joke, wasn't it? A bad comment should be downmodded more, and users should not be penalized for that. Flagging, too, should happen if it's extremely bad.
And yet you also want to prevent echo chambers. So many people just blindly ram the downvote button on a grey comment. Or a comment that goes against one of the big names on HN, even if that comment is right.
Your responses to 2. and 3. (and 1. too) basically all come down to "downvoting is amazing, we need more of it!"
I don't really know how to respond to that. Are you completely oblivious to echo chamber effects..?
Edit: the fact that you downvoted this immediately only strengthens my point, dude.
I have some posts where it’s simply not clear why anyone would downvote it, and some of my downvoted comments spawned huge sub threads, so clearly not everyone thought they were downvote worthy.
There's so many TLDs today, the ability to raise prices isn't what it was.
Though they could 5x prices and even if they lost 60% of their business, they'll come out ahead. I could understand the worries of .org holders.
Their customers, if you think about it, are perhaps more likely to value what the domain stands for. Meanwhile the annual price is currently absolutely trivial versus the expenses of most organisations from higher GDP countries.
Some of their customers perhaps. If you go back and look at what companies were doing with domains 20 years ago most medium and large enterprises bought <company name>.com, .org, .net and some country code tld domain because that's what everyone recommended "in case someone cybersquatted". I think behaviour has stopped now there are hundreds of gTLDs available. Consequently .org is much less likely to sell to businesses, and will find it very difficult to grow.
Perhaps by some percentage of them are registered non-profits. However not the majority.
Even if they push 60% of domains off of .org that business will mostly go to other TLDs owned by the same people..
This will be a net cost increase, likely a big one (since there are no actual controls), for .org owners.
that is doubling every 7 years thereabouts, far far far higher than inflation or cost bais increases would demand
"Save .org": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677
"Take action to save .org": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21664582
"Why I Voted to Sell .org": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21656960
"ISOC sold the .org registry to Ethos Capital for $1.1B" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21667355
> On May 7th, Chehadé registered the domain for EthosCapital.com.
> On May 13th, ICANN decided to lift the price caps anyway. The decision was made by ICANN staff, not its board, evading the obligation to publicly carry out due diligence and explain board decisions.
> On May 14th, Ethos Capital was incorporated as a new Boston-based “investment firm”, founded by Brooks — who stepped down from running the 60-person team at Abry to do so. Ethos Capital has two staff: Brooks and Nora Abusitta-Ouri, a former ICANN SVP who later worked for Chehadé. 
Then a couple of months later, surprise, .org gets sold to Ethos Capital... Almost as if this was the plan the whole time...
Here's hoping that somehow these crooks actually end up in jail...
While a major charity like the Salvation Army certainly doesn’t care if a single, sub-$100 annual expense doubles or even goes up by a factor of ten, thousands of small organizations across the country might care enough to band together and take action.
Technically .org is not just for American style "non profits", I it was and should be any thing else that doesn't fit the other big 5 eg jwz.org.
That was the problem a lot of shady stuff goes on in the Charity world ("but its for charity") notorious for bullying often much worse than the behaviour of wall street or city bankers and traders.
I feel that a more sensible approach such as ours would have been better served - as coop members tend to be stroppy bastards and would have stood up for the common good - a lot of our ISP side in Manchester where members of alt 2600 .
> Raise rates for long-time owners of common words. They weren’t using that premium space anyway.
This is forbidden by the .org registry agreement, 2.10(c): https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-...
This hurts my head. Needless to say, the returns on this fund will be _far_ less assured than the returns on simply maintaining the .org business as it was (especially with Goldman managing the fund).
Impressively, even ISOC comes out a loser from this deal. Only Ethos wins, but then, that was surely the point.
While, granted, I was perhaps a little silly to go org (it seemed like a good idea back then!), it's mildly terrifying that my personal footprint on the web of 20+ years can now be held to ransom by a random VC firm, and to keep my own email address I might have to pay an additional $$$ annually.
And I don't see any reason to expect the annual probability that it's transitioned back to a non-profit to be a lot different in the future than it is right now, which means that if it makes sense to migrate then it doesn't make sense to wait. Especially when continued use of the domain only increases the migration cost as it gets further distributed as your active contact information.
Locking down [your-name].org for 10 years carries its own value proposition beyond the mere calculation of price today vs in the future.
For most people there aren't a lot of individual decisions that will cause you to make a life-changing profit on their own, but it's making little decisions again and again that adds up.
> Locking down [your-name].org for 10 years carries its own value proposition beyond the mere calculation of price today vs in the future.
The premise is that you're going to immediately migrate away from using the domain. Which means that any further use of the old domain just keeps you invested in it, and it's not worth a whole lot if you're not going to use it for anything.
There is also something to be said for minimizing the profits of the entity screwing you over, even if it's only by a little, because that adds up too.
As much as people think that the organization that oversees internet naming must be federal (because how could it not be, they control stuff for the ENTIRE COUNTRY AND BEYOND), both ICANN and ISOC are literally just private industry non-profit organisations, like any other 501c3. If you want to sue them, or you want them sued by government, you're going to have to contact the DA for the state(s) they are registered in.
As insane as that might seem for something as far-reaching as "the ownership of the .org top level domain".
This is one of the reasons why people around the world are a little sceptical of American exceptionalism.
I can't believe ANY possible explanation (not even incompetency in this case) except direct or indirect bribery.
Really sad to see more and more of theses cases where Non-Profits sell out (e.g. OpenAI), I wonder whether this is a byproduct of people sozialized in the age of hyper-capitalism and consumerism...
If they invest with GS, see how much is left after 5-7 years.
It was "only two US state courts are in charge of it but the whole world decided to start using it anyway".
No one forced anyone to use the US DNS system. They all knew what they were signing up for when they joined the public internet in the 80s and 90s and haven't spend any time or money lobbying for a change.
Really? Knew as in "ticked a box" or as in "informed consent"?
You could argue that DNS is broken, and that ICANN is bad, but there's no legal argument for .org being subject to foreign governments.
It's not like with domain names where some bytes are floating around in networks and it's easiest if we all use the US addressing system.
There are ≈ 40 hunks of metals up in space with extremely precise clocks, _completely_ essential to the functioning of the GPS system, owned by the US, sent into space by the US.
Just because we leech on their satellites doesn't lower the "exclusivity" of the ownership by the US. Which is also probably why all the other big players (Russia/China/EU) are doing their own GNSS.
do note that neither of these are exclusively owned by the US,
but rather that the US owns the responsibility to maintain these services that we all use.
False. The US has no responsibility, they own it.
even the dollar as reserve is a fickle thing that could change if the rest of us choose to.
And until other countries choose to, they get to deal with the consequences of their shortsighted reaches for centralization.
we could all just drop the US as our client provider and tank the american economy.
Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled.
we don't, because shit like this isn't supposed to happen, but push hard enough, and it will
The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent.
you already see russia and china going this route.
Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.
They own it and share it, they get control and everyone else gets a service, the moment they abuse their control, everyone else will stop their dependence on it. that means they have a responsibility to keep this balance or lose control of it.
> Good luck, there's plenty of software in Europe with hardcoded URLs, and there's no chance of getting operating systems in Europe, which are contributed to almost exclusively by US companies, to switch their DNS over to something that isn't ICANN-controlled.
legacy systems are mainly an issues for hospitals, and if necessary, the governments (who pays for these hospitals anyway) would afford a switch. the US is more vulnerable for something like this since their hospitals are private.
> The US has performed coups on foreign countries at least a dozen times. Other countries won't do a thing, as is shown by historical precedent.
the US performs coups in third-world countries struggling with stability. they have never attempted a coup in a well organized country with strong ties.
> Neither of those run their own DNS, they leech off of ICANN, and occasionally block things or modify records. Were ICANN to disappear, both would be in disarray.
both of these are building their own as we speak. for the very reason we're having this argument.
They're already abusing their control, all other countries are helpless.
I guarantee you it'd take more than a decade to switch from ICANN.
This is ahistorical.
Russia isn't building a genuine alternative, and China, while they already have a genuine alternative, would be committing suicide to deprecate any service controlled by ICANN.
The USA is responsible because they own it, as every owner is.
What you should have brought up, really, is the UN. The US pays for most of what is effectively a common good, because it derives prestige, influence, and material advantages (indirect control of a huge chunk of diplomatic communications, tons of money from workers and diplomats stationed there, etc etc) from hosting it.
And sure enough, the UN has a specialized agency that would have been the natural destination for a global communication service: the ITU. Sadly, the ITU is (in)famed for being a political clusterf#ck, so a choice was made by the Clinton/Gingrich generation of US politicians to keep the internet well away from it. That might have been a wise choice at the time, but we've since seen the drawbacks of that choice: instead of getting captured by known evils with some (small) degree of accountability, dns was captured by a bunch of new evils that answer to no one. That way lies oligarchy, as Russia showed in the last 30 years.
GPS is a derivative of Håkan Lans AIS. The US military built the satellite network yes, but had they not shared it, another network would have been constructed to take its place as the technology itself is not American.
I fully agree with you though, the UN exist to host these projects as a non-partial entity. The fact that they don't is cause for some frustration and a risk to the world.
For all practical purposes, these systems are owned by the U.S. because America maintains them. That lets the U.S. government cut it off to unfriendly users, the definition of control.
If another World War breaks out, or major conflict that the military deemed necessary they can and will cut off all Cilivian access to the GPS Network
This is why Russia has its own, and China is in the process of Deploying its own, and the EU has considered deploying their own as well.
No, you have this all backwards. Let's take a hypothetical country -- Fredonia with it's Fredonian Franc. The government of Fredonia decides "I want to be a global reserve currency!". How would they go about accomplishing that?
First, let's define what it means to be a global reserve currency. What it means is that other reserve banks use your currency as their reserve. That means other reserve banks need to accumulate Fredonian Francs, and in large amounts.
Of course banks don't warehouse currencies, they would be holding Fredonian Government Bonds (FGB), which must be bought with Fredonian Francs. So how would they get their hands on large numbers of FGBs? By running trade surpluses against Fredonia.
In other words, to be a reserve currency means you have to allow the rest of the world to run large trade surpluses against you, which means you have to allow your currency to be permanently overvalued relative to the rest of the world -- relative to what it would be valued if there was no global investment demand for Fredonian Francs.
Now, all of a sudden, it's not looking like such a great proposition for the Fredonians, as this means that their own production is disadvantaged in global markets more or less permanently and their financial system has to be huge and swollen. It distorts the Fredonian economy and hurts workers. That would require a very resilient economy and a population willing to tolerate the employment hit to running persistent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
Next, Fredonia would need to develop deep and liquid capital markets, so that the rest of the world would be confident in storing their wealth there. That means a long tradition of rule of law, large turnover at low prices, and huge bond markets. Big enough to absorb the surplus of the entire world. It also means that your interest rates are going to be permanently lower than they would be if there was no excess global demand for FGBs. This means your economy is going to be subject to asset bubbles and financialization -- we're talking huge bond markets that risk dominating the country.
So the economy of Fredonia has to be big, be investor friendly, have strong property protections and rule of law, a grotesquely bloated and powerful bond market, and be willing to run permanent trade deficits vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
Not many nations qualify on all of these accounts, right? China is big enough, but no rule of law, and since their entire economy is based on running trade surpluses instead of trade deficits, they are suited to be the accumulator of global reserves rather than the issuer of global reserves. Saudi Arabia? Nope. The EU? Nope. Simply no one else is both able and willing to pay the price to be a global reserve currency, and that's why it's going to remain the USD. Not only is this not a "fickle" thing, the rest of the world should be grateful that the US is willing to sacrifice the interests of its own workers and production base in order to make sure the rest of the world has a steady supply of USG bonds.
Rather, the real question is how long will the US be willing to bear this burden? When the US was 40% of global GDP, and global trade was tiny relative to global GDP, it didn't seem like a very big burden. But today, when the US economy doesn't dominate the rest of the world and trade is huge, the price of being a global reserve currency is devastating. It means de-industrialization, collapsing cities in the rust belt, rising death rates and a shrinking US middle class, as well as rising Federal deficits.
I can very easily see a future in which the US starts imposing more and more capital controls that prevent foreigners from purchasing dollar assets similar to protections that other nations have, at which point guess what -- there will be no global reserve currency. The free ride, for the rest of the world's producers, will be over.
Trade agreements will need to go back to being settled either bilaterally, or with some kind of specie (gold? silver? bitcoin?). This would be a great thing in some respects, because it would force each nation to not overproduce, but it would cause a huge contraction in international trade, corresponding to a contraction in global GDP and well being, and especially to those economies that rely on running persistent trade surpluses in order to employ their workers -- nations such as Germany, China, Japan will take big hits should they lose the ability to persistently run surpluses.
This would also imply that the Fredonian government would be highly incentivized to run at a constant deficit, more so than other governments, because its cost of capital would be lower.
Your argument is so convincing that I am having a hard time seeing what the US gets out of all this. Cheaper capital and cheaper imports, I suppose. But surely there is a reason for this besides American altruism.
But if the US ever gets tired of this, why would it start capital controls? Why not just inflate the currency?
This is the same reason why a policy of "inflating the currency" is not going to work for the US, and instead capital controls are the policy option of choice. I don't want to get the goldbugs in this thread, but the quantity of money is demand determined by the private sector, and the policy variable that the government has is the overnight interest rate. This means that "inflating the currency", or trying to create inflation, is done by lowering the policy rate. Fighting inflation consists of raising this rate. So when you say "inflate the currency", what you mean is lower the rate of interest. But that rate can only be lowered to zero, and more importantly other nations will respond by lowering their interest rates. This process is called "competitive devaluation", because what matters for the trade balance is the relative value of the dollar with other currencies, not the absolute value. The US cannot unilaterally set the relative value, and devaluation by US will be met with devaluation by our trading partners.
Moreover devaluation is very risky and might substantially increase the trade deficit, because when the rest of the world devalues their currency to match, it is much more likely that they are the ones who will suffer a currency crisis than the US. So this policy would risk destabilizing the currencies of our trading partners, leading to financial crisis and another flight to the USD as a safe haven as investors flee the currencies of our trading partners and rush to the US.
On the other hand capital controls is something that can be done unilaterally and cannot be countered in the same way as competitive devaluation. If we impose a tax, of say, 2% on foreign holders of US assets, and the rest of the world retaliates with their own tax, then this is unlikely to cause a global currency crisis, it will cause cross border capital flows to suddenly reverse in which US investors pull their money out of foreign nations while foreign investors pull their money out of the US and bring it back home. Because foreigners invested more in the US than the other way around, this should result in more capital flowing into the rest of the world rather than the kind of capital flight that creates a currency crisis.
In terms of how we got to this point, that's a tough question because you are asking me to assert motives and plans, when all I can reliably do is describe the current situation we are in. If I were to guess, I think it was not intentional. When the UK was the dominant economic power and the pound was the reserve currency the UK also suffered from chronic trade deficits, but the size of the imbalances were so much smaller before WW1 than today. What is happening now is truly unprecedented in the economic history of the world -- the depth of global supply chains, and the size of global trade imbalances is not something anyone would have predicted. So my guess is that the US maintained open capital markets for political and historical reasons -- because England did, and because market liberalism was a dominant economic philosophy. The US maintained rule of law for similar cultural and historical reasons. Then, after WW2, ours was by far the dominant economy, and everyone wanted to invest their assets in the US, particularly when the rest of the world was in shambles after WW2. It's said that the Marshall plan -- that transfer of dollars to Europe -- only partially offset the flight of money from Europe to the US as people wanted to invest in our bonds because we were a safe haven. So I would say that's how we became a reserve currency.
But in the beginning, the amounts were so small relative to the size of our economy that it didn't disrupt anything.
Over time, it did begin to disrupt things, but perhaps the benefits outweighed the costs to the people who mattered. Those working in US capital markets benefit from this system, since they get a cut of the transactions. And there is still a contingent of die hard market liberals who insist that we must maintain open capital markets, even as the rest of the world takes advantage of this.
Then businesses benefit, in the short term, from outsourcing. Consumers benefit, to some degree, from cheaper imports. The lower interest rates cause asset prices to be higher, so houses are more expensive as are stocks. This benefits the generation that bought the assets when they were cheaper.
So it's not the case that the entire nation is a loser. There are constituencies that benefit from this system and they have power. However the costs are mounting, and the benefits are fading. It's great to have a huge increase in house prices, but that's a one time hit -- a transfer to one or two generations. For the generations that come after, housing is just more expensive. It's great to have boosted stock prices from outsourcing, but now US firms are discovering that they have foreign competitors who are climbing the value the chain.
And of course the social costs for working class Americans are devastating, leading to political instability. I think we are well past the point where the benefits outweigh the costs.
By the way, I am not predicting that we adopt capital controls -- such a thing would be unheard of for us, since we are so indoctrinated in believing that free flow of capital is a type of virtue. However I am a believer in the principle that unsustainable things at some point must end. We cannot continue to bear this burden indefinitely.
so yeah, i don't buy it. the US isn't 'saving the world' by holding the dollar as a reserve. the entire US economy is hanging on by a thread and would collapse if they lose the global trade commission on dollar.
We'll see your "US-owned, US-created" and raise you Margrethe Vestager.
E.g. can they ask google.com for $1B to renew and mygrandmascookiecompany.com for $20 to renew?
So Ethos wouldn't be able to screw over existing registrants with non-uniform renewal pricing.
Source: Section 2.10(c) of https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-...
For .com, .net, .org it has historically not been possible to price discriminate like this.
For the "new TLDs" (the explosion of new extensions we have seen in recent years), the registry contract is different and they are indeed allowed to do this. They call it "premium pricing".
Part of the big outcry about the recent changes to .org is that it brings it closer to the "new TLD" model, which disfavors the registrant.
I mean, I'm not trying to imply it should be attributed to malice, but are they asleep at the wheel or what?
"Web pages only last about 100 days on average"
http was nice, we gave it a good spin, it was certainly close enough for the cigar but in all honesty... where you have 100 days to find the content you want to consume it is not even a reasonable approach. I bet a lot of it is still available some place but whoever archived it legally may not distribute it without permission.
I really don't care if TOR, IPFS, freenet or zeronet work out of the box. If it means access to more content its great. I don't even know how to use gopher atm.
Good stuff is happening but where they apparently chose to make it an extension is pretty lame.
If the user types "salvation army" into the browser we know what they want. Selling the rights to deny access is not what we need.
 - http://blog.archive.org/2015/02/11/locking-the-web-open-a-ca...
 - https://blog.ipfs.io/2019-10-08-ipfs-browsers-update/
.onion isn't a direct competitor for DNS. It does some of the things DNS does (e.g. a consistent identifier that sticks even if your IP address changes), and even does some things DNS doesn't (e.g. encrypted transport), but the names aren't human-readable. And it compromises the security if you try to pretend that they are by generating pretty keys, because the random junk on the end there is important.
Namecoin, on the other hand, is a direct competitor for DNS.
However, DNS itself is pretty well federated. You're at the mercy of the TLD operator, but that only means you need to be careful to choose a trustworthy one. On the other hand, if you had asked last year which of the TLD operators would be the least likely to screw you over, a lot of people would have said .org, so... maybe there is something to this whole cryptographic trust thing.
For many decades (before smartphones) the phone system lacked human-readable names and yet was extremely popular with non-technical users. Similarly, most web sites probably do not benefit much or at all from a human-readable name.
A bigger problem with .onion is probably the fact it is accessible only via a system (Tor) that has significantly longer response time than a standard web site tends to have.
First of all, phone numbers were pretty short, and were chunked and thus pretty easy for humans to memorize. Do you think the average human will be able to memorize a bunch of onion addresses?
Second, even with phone numbers, companies used the corresponding characters to the digits to create human readable names, for example 1-800-FLOWERS
That's the problem - you have to get organizations - some of whom are deeply invested in making money off of DNS - to agree to not do so.
Or you just ignore the existing system and build a new one... once enough desirable sites are in the new one, then the old one will fade away.
Ethos Capital does not give 2 shits about your comments here.
Are you writing to the DA like this article suggested? What else can you do?
Myself, I don’t personally care that much. But I see a lot of people here obviously do, and I don’t really see that energy translating into action. I would like to see it move forward in a positive direction, so I’m asking the question of you - you don’t like it, what are you going to do about it besides complain here?
Letting companies control domain names serves no purpose. They don't prevent domain squatters, they've censored on behalf of governments in the past, and now they're allowed to gouge nonprofits on .org domains.
A decentralized domain name system wouldn't solve all these problems, but at least we wouldn't be paying rent-seeking middle-men to provide terrible service.
I renewed my .org for 10 years.
I'm hoping this incident will provide new energy to these efforts.
Now, even if browser support is all we need (it's not), how can we possibly explain this to users? Many, many links, bookmarks, and URLs would break along the way, causing confusion and harm.
In the meantime those of us with an .org domain have to look after ourselves. I have an .org domain since 2008 and my whole online identity is tied to it. In other words I'm a stakeholder.
Are you suggesting that I should give it up and support ... what exactly?
So yes, I'll be renewing for the maximum limit as well.
It's like some guy claiming his classic car is worth 25,000 dollars. If nobody is offering 25k for it then it's not worth 25k. Period, end of story.
It's like that 'some guy' selling his classic car to a classic car dealer who was walking by, without first testing the price with experts or posting an advertisement.
There seems to be some kind of breach of fiduciary trust here somewhere, heads should roll at ICANN even if all of this was somehow not in violation of any laws.
Valuation of a cashflow is a very well understood thing. There is literally a button on my calculator that just does it. And a built-in function in Excel.