I think this buries the lead a bit, the real story is that the aforementioned private equity firm is connected to (e.g. domain name was registered by) the former CEO of ICANN.
Me too. I wasn't happy about the sale of .org TLD, but this!
> Former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade personally registered the domain name currently used by Ethos Capital in May and it was registered as a limited company in the US state of Delaware on May 14. That date is significant because it is one day after ICANN indicated it was planning to approve the lifting of price caps through its public comment summary.
That seems like a textbook definition of "graft".
The article also describes several people involved in this whole deal, shuffling among ICANN, Donuts, PIR ("public interest", sure..), Ethos Capital ("ethos", sure..) - which sounds like a textbook definition of "regulatory capture".
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" always seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"?
Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities, perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical.
That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets.
There's no significant push to move to anything except a market economy in the West (even most of the self-described “socialists” in the West want a market socialism, not a command economy), but there are simply efforts to make tweaks to mitigate what are perceived to be serious harms of un- or improperly-regulated markets without changing that the basic nature of the economy is market-based.
So, people might propose banning trade in a particular item that is seen as causing great harm external to those buying and selling it. Or might propose taxing it to fund harm mitigation, bringing the costs it involuntarily imposes on others into the trade transaction.
Or if a particular good is seen as essential but the market is widely seen as failing at delivering it, might propose socializing that industry (either health care or health insurance are common areas receiving that treatment in the developed West.)
So the cry of “free markets” in internal policy debates is never a rebuttal to an argument for a radically different economic system, but for minor tweaks to correct widely perceived serious harms from the existig market system. So, it has a tendency to seem to be “I want to profit at the expense of the public good”, because it only comes up when there is a debate because of a widespread concern that the profit motives driving the market are causing serious harm to the public good, and only as a defense against the proposed solution to that problem.
I'm not entirely sure but I don't think their point - with econ terms removed - is particularly profound.
I think they're saying "the West" is so capitalist even the stuff people complain restricts free markets doesn't actually. If that's what they're saying I think they're wrong. For a good summary of why, see https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/pcpe/news/detail/32605/
Rephrased:
> Because market norms are so universally accepted in the West that the usual alternative to pure laissez-faire that “free market” arguments are deployed against is
The West is very pro market, so when people argue for free markets they are usually arguing against...
> a market accompanied by regulation aimed at internalizing externalities,
... making companies pay for the harms they cause (an example of internalizing a negative externality would be charging a factory for the CO2 they emit)
> perhaps with socialization of a very narrow band of industry for which internalizing externalities in private trade is not seen as practical.
... or maybe having the government own the company in the narrow spaces that makes more sense (probably they're referring to utility companies, but usually the argument for the government controlling that sort of company is slightly different)
>×That is, it is usually deployed in situations where it can be seen as an argument for maintaining a situation where trade occurs with substantial unmitigated negative externalities over an alternative which addresses some of the negative externalities but otherwise preserves markets.
In other words when people cry "free markets" they're usually arguing against solutions that would result in slightly regulated but free enough markets.
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"?
Jeez, I wonder how many calories you burn each day by jumping into conclusions...
The entire internet was built by free market ethos in the sense that it was a network of people doing what they thought was best for them and their causes. But ofc, that´s not as important now is it? after all, once the fruits of the free market ripens, somehow the rules change and suddenly "public good" means whatever people want it to mean as long as it extracts value in their favor.
Now don´t get me wrong, I dislike this .org bullshit as much as the next guy, but imagine if I would have said:
Why do cries of "public good!!1" __always__ end up meaning "I want to abolish all profits and usher in the marxist utopia"?
It would be utterly stupid of me to say that because that is not the case, and the same goes for your statement.
The Internet was built via a combination of defense funding and universities who thought it was a good idea. The free market didn't get involved until much later on in the process.
> Why do cries of "free market!!1" __always__ seem to end up meaning "I want to profit at the expense of the public good"?
That matches the reality I've found myself reading about in the news for the last decade or so. Regular folk don't go declaring "free market", they don't need to, they just get on with things. It's those who feel they need to distract from or justify their actions that declare "free market" mainly because that shuts up the majority of critics who refuse to follow the money trail back to their sponsors.
Hypercapitalism and Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" and all that.
Woah this is way worse than the headline implies - I thought 'non-profit .org sold' meant one unlucky charity that forgot to renew its domain, not the whole TLD!
Not the gp, but I see .org tld sale as a major breach of trust. Names are very, very serious business in internet.
What is next? .gov domain sale to unscrupulous private firm based on Bahamas? Per-nation dns systems without respect to each other whatsoever and resulting collapse of https, since it is based on dns?
> Adding to the frustration is the fact that ICANN gave no explanation for moving ahead with the decision to lift caps despite the public opposition. It also carried out no economic analysis of the change, despite being aware that it could be worth billions of dollars. Unusually for such a high-profile issue, the decision was also made by the organization’s staff rather than its board.
I am old enough to remember when .com .net .org and so on had real meanings. But those days are long, long gone. When was the last time any registrar ever refused to issue a name based on the nature of the entity requesting it?
I know people will think I'm trolling, but here it goes: why does it matter if they bump up the prices, when there are lots of TLDs to choose from, and the differences in price aren't that big?
Addressed in the article - you did read the article, didn't you? - but:
a) brand entrenchment - it's difficult to get organisations to rebrand
But much more importantly
b) the entire ethos goes against the sociological and ethical values of the .org TLD and those who chose it to represent their entities.
Also the deal appears to have been done immorally, in bad faith, with timed offers based upon insider knowledge by individuals who stepped out of one job into another of conflicting interest.
I would think that would be because there are a lot of existing non-profits with .org domain names, for whom it would be far from ideal to lose that, or to have to spend larger parts of their budgets on their domain name.
... and for those that choose not to renew based on cost or ideological protest, there's the opportunity for a scammer to slide their hand quietly into the glove of trust that was lovingly crafted by the previous long-term owners of the domain.
Undiplomatic, maybe, but not trolling. Outside a few crusty dusty grumpy old neckbeards, nobody on this planet gives a shit who gets to use which characters and dots. And frankly, I don’t think they’re wrong.
Sure, what we have here is a screamingly obvious instance of nepotistic grift, but it’s totally the wrong thing to fixate on. The hard truth is TLDs shed any semblance of semantic significance long ago; between SEO, squatters, and the great unwashed mass, what matters now is not meaning but visibility. A commercial (.com) domain nowadays could be a non-profit, personal homepage, hardcore prawns and illegal warez; sometimes even an actual business. Regional domains are just as meaningless: Indian Ocean (.io) the must-have address for pretentious nerd tech; India (.in) and US (.us) pure catnip for pathological punsters; and so on. TLDs nowadays are merely an ontological exercise in separating marks from their money. Embarrassing, but just not important; so forget that, and move on.
The real problem with domains is their ongoing inability to do the one job we do need done right: reliably persistently tying Real World entities to their online global presence, and vice-versa. Ask yourself: who owns your internet (domain-based) identity? You don’t; at best you rent one for a little while, but between spoofs, hijacks, simple homonyms, and the inevitable renewal expiry dates, your ability to vouchsafe your online representation for the rest of the world is a paper-thin joke; as trustworthy and dependable as a three-bob note.
..
TL;DR: .ORG sell-off is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is Lack of Trust endemic in the current system. Any why should the individuals and institutions behind it want to make it any more trustworthy, while it so easily facilitates their own petty bureaucratic irrelevant graft?
Ultimately, I don't see it being solved anytime soon unless we figure out how to decentralize DNS and the new solution becomes mainstream.
At the end of the day, the internet is just a bunch of machines with IP addresses. DNS is just a layer on top of it that makes it easier for humans to type in a name to get to a machine.
Why do we even have registrars at all? Why do we have the ICANN? There's no way in hell that my domain name (which is essentially just a line in a database somewhere pointed at an IP address) actually costs any entity $10 a year to maintain the infrastructure for. It's all a giant grift, and the people in control have been straight up printing money for years now.
Why do we let these organizations have so much control over us? We are hackers. Let's come up with a decentralized solution and paint these assholes out of the picture already.
(I am not GP) I agree that they are good points. And yet, somehow, the parent post is sitting there heavily downvoted. Does it mean that people like the current system?
