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