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.