'Why I Voted To Sell .ORG' (circleid.com)
70
Richard Barnes, Member of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, writes: I joined the board's unanimous decision to, sell the Public Interest Registry (PIR), the registry for the .org top-level domain, to Ethos Capital. Since this transaction has gotten some attention, I'd like to speak a little about why, in my estimation, this deal is a good one for the Internet. It basically comes down to two things: 1. The Internet Society does great work protecting the Internet and bringing it to the people who need it most -- work that is way more impactful than leasing domain names. This transaction secures that work's future and independence. 2. Ethos is a worthy successor to the Internet Society as the steward of .org.
There's no doubt that .org has a big impact on the online brand and identity of nonprofits. But the impact of the Internet Society is much broader than that. For those who might be unfamiliar with the Internet Society, our mission is as follows: 1. The Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's lives, and a force for good in society. 2. Our work aligns with our goals for the Internet to be open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy. We seek collaboration with all who share these goals. [...] This transaction will put that bigger mission on a solid footing -- so that the Internet Society can provide much more substantive help to nonprofits than merely leasing domain names, and with more continuity over time. While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our revenue on a single business, and required a certain amount of our resources to be spent managing that business, distracting from the broader mission. Especially as PIR has grown over time, this situation has become increasingly untenable. Establishing a more diverse portfolio of investments will allow us to have more predictable revenue over time, and to take a longer-range perspective when it comes to achieving our mission.
There's no doubt that .org has a big impact on the online brand and identity of nonprofits. But the impact of the Internet Society is much broader than that. For those who might be unfamiliar with the Internet Society, our mission is as follows: 1. The Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the Internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people's lives, and a force for good in society. 2. Our work aligns with our goals for the Internet to be open, globally-connected, secure, and trustworthy. We seek collaboration with all who share these goals. [...] This transaction will put that bigger mission on a solid footing -- so that the Internet Society can provide much more substantive help to nonprofits than merely leasing domain names, and with more continuity over time. While it's true that running .org provided a relatively steady income stream, it effectively staked most of our revenue on a single business, and required a certain amount of our resources to be spent managing that business, distracting from the broader mission. Especially as PIR has grown over time, this situation has become increasingly untenable. Establishing a more diverse portfolio of investments will allow us to have more predictable revenue over time, and to take a longer-range perspective when it comes to achieving our mission.
Time will tell (Score:2)
Ethos claims they will "only" raise rates by 10% annually. Will they be the first profit-making corporation ever to actually keep their promise?
Translation of his statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Appears to be along the lines of 'I wanted to make sure my position of power was well secured, and if that means you rabble down in the trenches have to suffer more, than so be it. I am far FAR more important, so stop complaining!'
These people who consider themselves 'internet royalty' really need to stop pretending they are still doing great things. Their contributions in the past have been (for some of them) massive, and should not be forgotten, however this decision is exactly THE OPPOSITE of what they claim to be aiming for.
Re:Translation of his statement (Score:5, Insightful)
His overlong rationalization for why it's a good thing that they sold .ORG is a very large balloon, inflated with bullshit.
You don't often read platitudes that empty outside of a political campaign or a commencement speech.
Re:Translation of his statement (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't often read platitudes that empty outside of a political campaign or a commencement speech."
well yes, but only because most board meetings are not published.
Re: (Score:1)
To me, the news of the sale punctured that balloon. .org TLD is basically just three meaningless letters now.
The
Re: (Score:2)
More than likely he finished all the cash stuffed into the envelope that was shoved under the table to him .........
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Raising rates 10% a year means rates double every ten years.
I think you forgot your middle school maths. Raising 10% per year would make it almost 2.6 times the rate after 10 years. (1.1 ^ 10 = 2.59374...) For it to double after 10 years you only need to raise it about 7.2% per year (1.072 ^ 10 = 2.004231...)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have enough information from the summary to determine that.
It's not actually specified whether they mean compound interest or a set increase per year of 10% of the 2019 prices.
Re:Time will tell (Score:5, Interesting)
10% per year is theft. It should actually decrease by 10% per year, given new technology gets cheaper and faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Their employees should cost about the inflation, so about 2% increase per year. But, with economies of scale and automation, an employee should be able to do more every year. Anyways employees should be a small cost of their operation. They are a database. And other TLD are doing just fine without 10% per year increases.
So in the end, a 10% price reduction per year sounds about right to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure 10% is way beyond the rate of inflation, too.
Infinite growth is possible, kids!
the funny thing (Score:3)
about this blurb is that the guy says that it was making money for the internet society but that it was BAD that it was making money for the internet society because they weren't getting money from other places. ..so they traded it for a payoff today and have no steady income source at all and thats somehow better for them.
10% is way beyond inflation anyways. and .org is already an expensive domain. 10% yearly I reckon would make it the most expensive domain in a really short time. .org is already all abou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He says in his excuses that they will - Make .org domain names "accessible and reasonably priced for all", including limiting price increases to no more than 10% per year - and he puts that forward as a good thing for everyone.
The explanation is probably that his salary has been rising at much more than 10% a year while he hasn't been doing any more, so he's lost touch with what inflation and reality actually are and thinks such rises are appropriate.
Other than because you got lots of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other than because you got lots of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not even given a good reason. There was nothing stopping them from branching out if the current .org was supplying a steady income. His reason is no better than "we wanted to change things because we're bored."
Re:Other than because you got lots of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Steady income is good to have, and can be used to fund other activities, surely?
Re:Other than because you got lots of money? (Score:5, Insightful)
ISOC's would probably violate its charter if they tried to mine PIR for maximal profits.
Selling it with some non binding promises to keep fee increases under control gives ISOC plausible deniability. It allows them to profit from something which if they did it themselves would violate their charter.
Perfectly rational behaviour, as is lying about it.
Re: (Score:3)
That'a what I thought. Why not create a non-profit spinoff whose only job is to manage .org?
Re: Other than because you got lots of money? (Score:1)
But that wouldnt pay for his cocaine.
Predictable long-term money (Score:2)
The buyer, at least, and probably the Internet Society, thinks they that can MORE money by having .org. But that's putting all of your eggs on one basket. By selling it now, they can invest in multiple different income streams, which will give them more reliable income long-term, though probably less overall.
So you think it gets everything for free? (Score:3)
> it's a non-profit organization
Amd you think that means they get their office space for free? They don't have to pay their electric bill, and their servers are free?
Non-profits have expenses to pay. To not make a profit, their expenses are as much as their revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to call 'absurd' on this.
They are trading a literally 'forever' revenue stream, with no deprecation (a car decreases in value yearly, even if you maintain it well), and only minor ongoing costs...
For a one-time payout that can be squandered/lost/invested poorly/paid in bonuses.
This is a very *poor* fiscal decision. They could be funded *forever* with this.
Maybe. There are already more than 1,000 TLDs (Score:2)
.org might bring $X in revenue for next Y years, and it might not. We've already gone from seven TLDs to well over 1,000. It's entirely possible that five years from now, you'll be able to register .blymie for $1,000. Or I your case you might get blymie.nerd for $3, from someone who paid $1,000 for .nerd.
I think it would have been reasonable to keep it ans it was reasonable to move to diversified (less risky) income. I haven't seen the studies to have an opinion on which is better, but those at IS who do
This scum (Score:1, Insightful)
This scum deserves a painful death.
Death threats aren't my thing. I'm not going to threaten to kill him, I'm not going to suggest anyone else should.
But if anyone deserves a long, drawn out death from anal cancer, with repeated rounds of failed chemotherapy making him vomit all over himself and then go into brief remission, only to be followed by more painful reoccurence and far more pain, it's this shitbag.
And then he should decide to end it by blowing himself up, but fail with burns over 90% of his body.
All Bet's Are Off (Score:4, Informative)
What are the odds he'll retire to a board membership place at Ethos?
TLDR (Score:2)
He's lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Blah blah blah (Score:2)
Blah Blah Blah money blah blah blah
It's always the same. Every single time.
.org's are nonprofit? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't slashdot sell out for a lot of money as well? Hypocrite much?
Slashdot never claimed to be for your benefit.
As opposed to SoylentNews PBC (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike the red site, which is literally a Public Benefit Corporation [soylentnews.org].
Wait. What? (Score:3)
If a non-profit sells who gets the money? The board of directors are overseers and do not own the organization.
So where did the money go?????
Re: (Score:2)
of course they can (Score:1)
that's not profit! profit is the extra you give to the "owners", the "shareholders" of a private company. AAA is a not-for-profit. You can make money, you just can't give it away to anyone that doesn't have a JOB at the organization.
Credit-unions are banks set up as not-for-profits. The organization, is a business, and can make as much money as it is able to. You can't pay dividends to owners?
Note, when a company does something "at cost"... that means everyone working on the project and all the supplie
Re: (Score:2)
the non-profit apparently did other stuff than managing .org. So they get a big amount of money, one time, which should help them do that other stuff. I am sure it's good for them. But it's bad for me and others .org owners.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with this sale (I think that the base registries should all be non-profit, but then I'm a raging socialist), but non-profits can use this kind of sale to do good. The amateur radio group that previously owned all of the 44/8 subnet (AMPRNet) sold off a significant portion of their /8 to Amazon. They were given the /8 back when subnets were given out freely. The monies raised from the sale of the subnets has gone into a trust fund to fund new projects, and get more people interested in digital
not-for-profit board members are not supposed ... (Score:1)
... to be paid at all.
"A sense of pride and accomplishment" (Score:2)
The internet needs a new layer of indirection (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most successful top level domains is
These functions should be separated. There should be a free and decentralized layer of indirection that enables functional equivalents to dynamic DNS, SRV records, load balancing and other technical aspects that deal with abstracting from IP addresses. Then there should be separate naming authorities which would primarily manage name spaces.
What concretely do you do? (Score:3)
I know you throw IETF a 3 Million pittance while you gobble up 18 Million in salaries, but other than that what concretely do we all get out of that?
I don't mind you rolled into an organization which managed to gobble up the .org monopoly and use it to enrich yourselves and just shut up about it ... but if you want to get on a high horse your organization needs a little more transparency.
Lets start with what do you earn mr. Barnes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
People will kill each other over $50. People like Dick have no morals.
Re: (Score:2)
It means that non-profits are royally screwed by the sale because they will have to weigh the pain of paying rapidly rising registration fees against the pain of migrating to a different TLD.
Total BS - FU (Score:1)
This was an insider sale. You are an asshole, Dick.
forgot to mention (Score:2)
Wow that was a long letter just to avoid saying "Ethos bribed all our asses and we decided to sell out".
10% a year increases for something that costs fractions of a penny per domain per year to manage and which should get cheaper over time.
Fuck these rent-seeking assholes.
Lost their Legitimacy (Score:3)
Why would some random organization that doesn't even manage part of the Internet infrastructure be relevant at all when it comes to defining what the Internet is?
The Internet Society just became the Barnes Society.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. (Score:2, Insightful)
I worked with Richard for a few years. He's seriously a really smart dude. But he's also going to do whatever it takes to advance his career and make money, that includes anything that isn't exactly ethical. There is no doubt in my mind that it's one of these moves.
So, basically... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) We're great because we said so.
2) They're great because we said so.
Come on, dude. Even by PR standards these reasons are embarrassing.
Some Australian Bloke and His Girlfriend (Score:2)
are a worthy successor to the Internet Society as the steward of .org.
Oh, really?
Piss off.
So why the rule change? (Score:1)
well that reads like pure bullshit (Score:1)
if you're making money on it... you're not diverting YOUR resources to run it... just part of its own proceeds.
Resignation from the Board of SFBayISOC (Score:1)