Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That's fair, but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped when they sold it to a party that looks set not to. "They were so good right until the point where they stopped being so good."





>but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped

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.


Talk about not responsive. All you did here is restate your previous point.

All you did was state that their previous actions aren't proof of the future, when we are talking about them having sold .org already.

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.


Previous to selling it.

Who cares? The act of selling it to someone without the obligation to steward is an abdication of that obligation.

and talking about precious years is just off topic and unrelated to the issue at hand.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: