ICANN Halts $1.1 Billion Sale of .Org Registry (theregister.co.uk)
42
Charlotte Web shares a report from The Register: ICANN has halted the proposed $1.1 billion sale of the .org registry to an unknown private equity firm, claiming this was "the right thing to do." The DNS overseer has been under growing pressure to use its authority to refuse the planned transfer of the top-level domain from the Internet Society to Ethos Capital, most recently from the California Attorney General who said the deal "puts profits above the public interest." ICANN ultimately bowed to the US state's top lawyer when it concluded today it "finds the public interest is better served in withholding consent."
It gave several factors, all of which were highlighted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra as reasons to reject it: the fact that the sale would see the registry -- which has long served non-profit organizations -- turn from a non-profit itself into a for-profit vehicle; that Ethos Capital was a "wholly different form of entity" to the Internet Society; that the $360m in debt that was being used to finance the deal "raises further question about how the .org registrants will be protected"; and that the measures that Ethos Capital had put in place following an outcry were "untested." The decision will likely spark a mixture of relief and celebration from millions of .org domain holders, including some of the world's largest non-profit organizations, many of which were certain that their long-standing online addresses were going to be milked for profit by an organization that never fully revealed who its directors or investors were.
It gave several factors, all of which were highlighted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra as reasons to reject it: the fact that the sale would see the registry -- which has long served non-profit organizations -- turn from a non-profit itself into a for-profit vehicle; that Ethos Capital was a "wholly different form of entity" to the Internet Society; that the $360m in debt that was being used to finance the deal "raises further question about how the .org registrants will be protected"; and that the measures that Ethos Capital had put in place following an outcry were "untested." The decision will likely spark a mixture of relief and celebration from millions of .org domain holders, including some of the world's largest non-profit organizations, many of which were certain that their long-standing online addresses were going to be milked for profit by an organization that never fully revealed who its directors or investors were.
Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice to see our Attorneys General doing some good.
How long before we have to fight round 2?
Re: Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
this old slashdotter agrees
it's rare to see anyone these days do the right thing instead of just taking the money
Re: (Score:2)
I was surprised how many people thought they could get away with it, even with California involved in the oversight.
Round 2 may or may not happen, depending on the outcome of the election.
Re: (Score:3)
Have faith that the people responsible for this failure will be replaced and round two will begin shortly.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that surprising? They nearly did get away with it and this is not over. This really is an 11th-hour action and it's not over yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just reanimate Jon Postel and let his zombie run IANA and ICANN?
Re: (Score:2)
How long before we have to fight round 2?
Lawsuit in 3...2...1.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that we should consider this just a temporary victory. This whole fiasco has conclusively demonstrated the corrupt nature of ICANN, that they were willing to go along with this farce until serious legal pressure was brought to bear on them from the CA AG. "Right thing to do" my ass. This would NEVER have gotten to this point if any of those folks had a whit of integrity.
The entire board needs to be replaced, and we may need new laws put into place to prevent this sort of thing from happening in t
Re: (Score:2)
We knew they had no integrity when they created the ".sucks" domain, and allowed Verisign to increase domain prices by 7% a year.
Its time the entire ICANN top brass were given a vote of no confidence by the members or enough people turn up to the public meetings and say as much.
https://www.icann.org/resource... [icann.org]
Re: (Score:1)
No kidding. Just another data point in how completely out-of-touch ICANN has become.
Maybe it's time for the third change of the entity that holds the IANA function...
Re: (Score:2)
Thank the FSM that ICANN was created as a California corporation.
I am now taking bets on how long it will be before they reincorporate somewhere a ... little more friendly.... like oh, maybe Dubai?
Re: (Score:3)
They may not go after .org again. However, the notion of privatizing public goods is not something these "investors" are going to easily give up in my opinion. They can get an installed base for peanuts and milk them until they shrivel; they'll throw away the husks and start over with some other public good.
Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems strange that there was even the option to sell a nonprofit's assets for profit to a for-profit company.
Isn't that usually illegal?
The proposed sale might not have been illegal, but, there are situations which demand more than the legal minimum. One or more of terms like justice, morality, ethics, in the public good, the right thing to do, then become part of the discussion. Collectively, most societies recognize decisions can require consideration of higher standards than legality.
Unfortunately, strict adherence to the letter of the law is often a fragile and inadequate measuring stick for any proposed action, or inaction, by an ind
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption is the only plausible explanation for the attempted sale.
It is. Some people obviously tried to get rich in an at least borderline criminal fashion.
Confused (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
An angry mob of armed civilians breaking into a capitol building might be a bit of a wake-up call. Not all deadly pathogens are virus from Wuhan - some are known as corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
We have the best government money can buy, but there's still a few critical areas to be pounded into place, filed to fit, and painted to match.
Re: Confused (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How did this one slip by?
International people complained. It doesn't just affect Americans who (I think it's clear by now) government agencies couldn't give a crap about.
Great! this will keep the .org (Score:3)
Just my 2 cents
YAY!!!!! (Score:1)
Yep, called it. (Score:2)
You don't delay such a major sale over and over again and then expect it to go through.
Re: (Score:2)
Until Sprint and T-Mobile did, but I sold my stock for the arbitrage gain ages ago, rather than sit on the risk of delay-after-delay.
But, they're really the exception that proves the rule of thumb hammering you described.
This is Not Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
That original blog post stank. For example, Internet Society President Andrew Sullivan claimed that the proposed buyer, Ethos Capital, "possesses a deep understanding of the intricacies of the domain industry". Go look at their investment portfolio (here [ethoscapital.mu]). See any other domain industry investments? Me neither.
Or how about the fact that the announcement was made afteran agreement had been reached. Where was the public invitation to tender? Why was the sale not advertised more widely?
On the Internet Society's web page, near the bottom, is a section entitled "Who we are", which reads, "The Internet Society is a global cause-driven organization governed by a diverse Board of Trustees that is dedicated to ensuring that the Internet stays open, transparent and defined by you."
There is simply no way that a sane or rational person could agree that the Internet Society's actions with respect to the proposed sale of the
More - Ethos Capital didn't and don't have the funds to secure the transaction and instead to propose it with by going in to debt. How do they propose to repay that debt if not by increasing prices, unless, of course, this behind-the-scenes deal was selling of the domain at a knock-down price by under-valuing it?
The logic and the evidence on hand just don't add up here. How come the Internet Society went all-in on claiming this deal was in the best interest of all concerned, only to change their mind when the Californian Attorney General raised concerns? If it was such a good deal in the first place, why turn round and agree?
I hope that the California AG is working up a detailed investigation of this. It would be interesting to better understand the relationships between the Internet Society and Ethos Capital. Like a review of phone calls, emails and meetings.
It's worth looking at some of the public statements by Internet Society CEO Andrew Sullivan, who was interviewed last November by "The Register", here [theregister.co.uk]. Among his claims:-
He was aware that people would not like the lack of consultation (but proceeded anyway).
He claimed that if he had paused long enough to consult the public, the "opportunity" would have been lost."
He claimed that if the proposal had been discussed in public, it would have "created a lot of uncertainty without any benefit". (Other than either having been blocked by the entirely reasonable outrage at the decision)
He claimed that "If you look there is a relatively small number of people complaining."
He claimed that, "Most people haven't noticed. Most people don't care one way or the other."
I hope that California's AG conducts a deeper look at this. I just have this completely unsubstantiated hunch that there's more to see here, none of it pleasant.
Re:This is Not Enough (Score:4, Informative)
Looking through the details ...
There are two Companies with the same name doing almost the same business!
there is a South African Company called: Ethos Capital - https://ethoscapital.mu/ [ethoscapital.mu] which has existed since 1984 and has Peter Hayward-Butt as CEO
and
there is a Other company called: Ethos Capital LLC - https://ethoscapital.com/ [ethoscapital.com] which only recently was created (2019) and has Erik Brooks as CEO
it is the LATTER one that is the company that wanted the .ORG domains. Wonder if they did this confusion number on purpose, so when people google the name they find the first company which may lend more credibility?
Wonder what the first company thinks about its name being reused and potentially being confused getting bad press?
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's fascinating... Either way, the whole thing stinks!
Re: (Score:3)
This. The whole deal stinks of backroom corruption. Some individuals were going to seriously enrich themselves.
In fact, ISOC itself didn't want to sell .org. AFAIK all chapters that expressed an opinion, objected. Only the governing committee was in favor. Gee, I wonder which individuals stood to profit from the sale?
I'd like to see a criminal investigation: this would likely result in a few jail terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption is why people go into power in the first place, around the world and through history.
You get in the way so you can get paid to get back out of the way.
The cosmic fraud of politics is thinking they're all naive Mr. Smiths Go to Washington, who are then corrupted by evil business. No, they set out to form that corruption and attack business, most of which would prefer to not have roadblocks to begin with.
"But we need regulation!" If I grant that, most of what happens still isn't necessary, and ev
Re: (Score:2)
On the Internet Society's web page, near the bottom, is a section entitled "Who we are", which reads, "The Internet Society is a global cause-driven organization governed by a diverse Board of Trustees that is dedicated to ensuring that the Internet stays open, transparent and defined by you."
There is simply no way that a sane or rational person could agree that the Internet Society's actions with respect to the proposed sale of the .org domain would result in an internet that "stays open, transparent and defined by you" when they conduct the sales negotiation in private, don't disclose the details - and don't even disclose who the buyers are.
It says it's diverse, and therefore must at least partially represent my racial, religious, and gender properties, which my leaders tell me are the most important thing about me, and why I should vote for them, didn't you read it?
Re: (Score:2)
It's called corporate raiders. Didn't Bain Capital tell you anything (or perhaps the name Mitt Romney)?
They work by leveraged buyouts. They buy something using that something as collateral. Then th
Xavier Becerra for President (Score:1)
Took a look at Wiki page on him, and he's got a great track record. When is he going to run for President? The Democrats would be much better off with him as their nominee than Biden.
Dodged a bullet (Score:2)
ICANN "puts profits above the public interest" (Score:2)
Well done (Score:2)
Long story short (Score:2)
ICANN; you can't!
Great! (Score:2)
If Ethos owns the .org registry and...nobody knows who the investors of Ethos are, the registry can *easily* change hands to whoever with enough capital to buy up Ethos. And if that entity has an interest in squashing free speech on Wikipedia...
Just saying. There are many entities, nation states included, with enough money and enough interest to make that happen.
The Authority of the California Attorney General (Score:3)
ICANN is incorporated in California as a public-benefit non-profit. Under the California laws, the state Attorney General is the super trustee of all public-benefit non-profit corporations. I can cite two examples of the Attorney General's authority.
System Development Corporation (SDC) was a non-profit spin off from the non-profit RAND Corporation some time in the 1950s. That spin off from a non-profit to a non-profit did not attract the attention of the Attorney General. In the 1970s, however, the management of SDC decided to convert the company into a for-profit. An investment bank advised SDC on the process and prepared for a public offering of SDC stock. The Attorney General stopped the public offering on the basis that the investment bank had a conflict of interest by designing the process and then making a commission as the underwriter of the public offering. Instead, SDC had to sell itself to the Burroughs Corporation (now Unisys) with the proceeds of the sale paid into a charitable foundation.
In California BlueCross was a non-profit insurance company. When BlueCross converted to for-profit as part of Wellcare, the Attorney General required that it create a charitable foundation and fund the foundation in the amount of $30,000,000. (There remains some controversy whether the full amount was paid into the foundation.)