Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday February 20 2020, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the maybe-too-late dept.

Now Internet Society told to halt controversial .org sale... by its own advisory council: 'You misread the community mindset around dot-org':

The Internet Society's own members are now opposing its sale of the .org internet registry to an unknown private equity firm.

The Chapters Advisory Council, the official voice of Internet Society (ISOC) members, will vote this month on whether to approve a formal recommendation that the society "not proceed [with the sale] unless a number of conditions are met."

Those conditions largely comprise the publication of additional details and transparency regarding ISOC's controversial sell-off of .org. Despite months of requests, neither the society nor the proposed purchaser, Ethos Capital, have disclosed critical elements of the deal, including who would actually own the registry if the sale went through.

[...] ISOC – and .org's current operator, the ISOC-controlled Public Interest Registry (PIR) – are still hoping to push DNS overseer ICANN to make a decision on the .org sale before the end of the month. But that looks increasingly unlikely following an aggressive letter from ICANN's external lawyers last week insisting ICANN will take as much time as it feels necessary to review the deal.

The overall lack of transparency around the $1.13bn deal has led California's Attorney General to demand documents relating to the sale – and ISOC's chapters are demanding the same information as a pre-condition to any sale in their proposed advice to the ISOC board.

That information includes: full details of the transaction; a financial breakdown of what Ethos Capital intends to do with .org's 10 million internet addresses; binding commitments on limiting price increases and free speech protections; and publication of the bylaws and related corporate documents for both the replacement to the current registry operator, PIR, and the proposed "Stewardship Council" which Ethos claims will give .org users a say in future decisions.

[...] "There is a feeling amongst chapters that ISOC seems to have disregarded community participation, failed to properly account for the potential community impact, and misread the community mindset around the .ORG TLD," the Chapters Advisory Council's proposed advice to the ISOC board – a copy of which The Register has seen – states.

Although the advisory council has no legal ability to stop ISOC, if the proposed advice is approved by vote, and the CEO and board of trustees push ahead with the sale regardless, it could have severe repercussions for the organization's non-profit status, and would further undermine ISOC's position that the sale will "support the Internet Society's vision that the Internet is for everyone."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday February 20 2020, @06:19PM (27 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 20 2020, @06:19PM (#960379) Journal

    I'm not opposed to people making money, but I am opposed to secret backroom deals that screw the users. Especially when it involves something that really should just be infrastructure and not subject to giant price hikes 'cause Shareholders.

    --
    "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 20 2020, @07:33PM (24 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 20 2020, @07:33PM (#960415)

    I am opposed to people making lots and lots of money by screwing over users. Especially when said users are non-profit organizations who for the most part are just trying to do a bit of good in the world, and if this deal goes through will have less to do that work.

    So your shareholders and owners made a bunch of money by jacking up the price? That was money taken from people who were helping trafficked Cambodian sex slaves escape their captors, people who were providing clean water and schooling to African villages, people who were providing medical care for civilians in war zones, and people who were providing scholarships for talented poor kids. If you feel great about that, you're a perfect demonstration of the adage that a love of money is the root of all evil.

    But even if the money was made completely ethically (and many if not most fortunes aren't), I really don't see any reason for an individual to have more than about $10 million in today's dollars: That's enough to live in a large and comfortable mansion plus a vacation home or two, travel wherever you want in first-class conditions, eat at the finest restaurants or hire a chef for your mansion, get the best health care the world has, and have a couple of full-time servants whose job is to satisfy your every whim, all without working. Nobody needs more than that, and I say that as someone who has some "old money" relatives.

    --
    The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:27PM (11 children)

      by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:27PM (#960428) Journal

      We're in the same boat there, I just may not have articulated it as well as you did. From what I can tell Markus "Notch" Pearson made his money pretty cleanly. His personal life not withstanding. There's also J. K. Rowling, and I assume quite a number of actors and other artists that made their money cleanly.

      I usually see the "Money is the root of all evil" saying, but that's just a misconstrued bible phrase "For the love of money is the root of all evil". Money in and of itself, isn't evil, but people do all manner of bad things in the pursuit of it. It's all about the actions. Being rich doesn't make you a bad person, being a bad person makes you a bad person. Just, a lot of people do bad things in pursuit of Money.

      --
      "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:30PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @08:30PM (#960430)

        He did actually quote the full phrase, "love of money is the root of all evil".

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:42PM

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:42PM (#960497) Journal

          Which is why I said what I said. It's a bit unusual to see someone not leave off that "for the love of" part.

          --
          "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @03:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @03:55PM (#960687)

          OK, but it still missed the rest of that verse.

          "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." [1 Timothy 6:10, NRSV].

          The missing elements: It's not "all" evil but "all kinds of" evil. The Greek written originals suppport that interpretation as well.
          And it's not just that it causes evil but that it causes one to walk off the path of faith and harm themselves as well. Contextually the entire chapter is not warning the public about what causes evil, but rather trying to say what it can do to the individual who goes after it. Not so much a warning to the Republic about the Sith as narrating how bad it was for Anakin Skywalker to walk away from the light side of the Force.

          That said, two verses earlier aligns to what Thexalon was saying. "Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out of it; but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these." [1 Tim 6:6-8]

          Here endeth the exegesis.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 20 2020, @10:52PM (6 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday February 20 2020, @10:52PM (#960475)

        So let's say you've earned your money completely cleanly, through your own efforts and hard work (LeBron James comes to mind for this). Great, good job, you clearly worked hard.

        But remember, you're in the "you're completely comfortable with your life and don't have to work" zone. So why aren't you giving away the money you ended up with over and above that? I can understand if you're making money faster than you can give it away, but it shouldn't be something you're hanging on to for too long. And furthermore, you should be demanding to be taxed more to pay for better public services for the society you're a part of, because better roads, schools, welfare, health care, science, etc etc should matter more to you than a bigger yacht or private jet.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:40PM (1 child)

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:40PM (#960496) Journal

          I don't disagree, I just don't think that is the way our society is headed. When was the last time you heard of a lottery winner donating 1/2 of their winnings to charity or becoming a philanthropist? Sure, they might give some to family, but it's as likely to cause a split in the family as it is to end up being something to celebrate.

          Greed is a powerful motivator, but that particular character trait doesn't lend itself toward the greater good. Sure, they'll do something for the greater good, if it's in their best interest. Why do you think Corporations give away good chunks of money to charity? It sure isn't out of the kindness of their hearts. Some maybe, but I would say the vast majority do it for a particular greedy reason. Whether it's to make people think better of the company, so others will spend money there. Tax breaks, or other financial incentives. A good portion of the time, "charity" is calculated.

          --
          "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:00PM (#960690)

            If someone were to, say, form a charitable foundation and endow it why would you, or should you, hear about it at all? I agree with you that it is far more likely to cause harm than good and the perils of greed are great. But if someone is humble enough to do that sort of thing they might be successful enough at concealing it such that the work is done but they are not elevated. For every "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" or "Pew Charitable Trust" there are many others you've never heard of. Hopefully they actually fulfill their charitable purpose and aren't used as a dodge for other purposes as we saw in the news not too long ago.

            But I agree that most corporations' charitable giving is done strictly for the tax advantages. (Which is why society set up those tax advantages in the first place.)

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 21 2020, @06:33AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @06:33AM (#960616) Journal

          So why aren't you giving away the money you ended up with over and above that?

          Because you can do better than give it away? Musk put more than $100 million into SpaceX according to Wikipedia. My take is that will generate a far better return in the long term than giving $100 million to anyone on Earth, like say the poor for health, education, etc.

          A key thing missed here is that wealth provides a healthier avenue (that is, it hurts less people) for the overly ambitious than political games.

          And furthermore, you should be demanding to be taxed more to pay for better public services for the society you're a part of, because better roads, schools, welfare, health care, science, etc etc should matter more to you than a bigger yacht or private jet.

          Except, of course, when those "better" spending targets don't actually matter to anyone aside from the people cashing the checks. A classic example are "bridges to nowhere". Everyone has them. Huge sums spent to connect itty bitty towns that never amount to much to civilization. I ran across a specific example of this while looking at great photos of some of the Norwegian islands along the coast of the main part of the country. They have a network of bridges and tunnels connecting a bunch of dinky islands to the mainland. DDGing for a quick link, I came across the 1.2 km long Måløy Bridge [wikipedia.org] - 32 million Norwegian Krone in 1973 (appears to be 23 million present day Euro) to serve a population of 4200 people (about 55k present day Euro per person).

          I'm sure it was great for the people building and maintaining the bridge and maybe the people living on the island in question. But it'd probably have been better spent just not taxing it in the first place.

          • (Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Friday February 21 2020, @04:20PM

            by TheReaperD (5556) on Friday February 21 2020, @04:20PM (#960698)

            Elon Musk is an outlier. He made his money specifically because Tesla and SpaceX were in his plans and he needed the money for them as he knew banks were not going to loan him money for his plans. The vast majority of rich people use their money... to make themselves richer. Wash, rinse, repeat.

            --
            Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 21 2020, @05:17PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 21 2020, @05:17PM (#960729)

            So let's say, for the sake of argument, that everything you said is true. There are still a bunch of leaps of logic you're making. Objections to your argument include:
            1. Why is SpaceX run by Elon Musk pouring $100 million into it the best possible way of building rockets? Why is it necessarily better than: (a) Elon Musk running government agency like NASA project building rockets, (b) Elon Musk as the head of a rocket-building program in a privately run non-profit organization such as a research institute or university, (c) Elon Musk running a for-profit corporations controlled by a large number of investors whose business is building rockets?

            2. While Musk isn't an idiot by any means, he's also not the only person capable of leading projects to build rockets, electric cars, etc etc. We know this because other people are leading other organizations that build rockets, electric cars, etc etc that are comparable to Musk's designs. Why is Musk the one in charge if other people can do his job well?

            3. Again, while Musk is a smart guy, he's not the one actually designing and building most things. He relies on a substantial staff of scientists, engineers, designers, and other professionals. If Musk was out of the equation entirely, why are you certain that this staff couldn't make rockets without him?

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 22 2020, @02:29AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 22 2020, @02:29AM (#960907) Journal

              1. Why is SpaceX run by Elon Musk pouring $100 million into it the best possible way of building rockets? Why is it necessarily better than: (a) Elon Musk running government agency like NASA project building rockets, (b) Elon Musk as the head of a rocket-building program in a privately run non-profit organization such as a research institute or university, (c) Elon Musk running a for-profit corporations controlled by a large number of investors whose business is building rockets?

              On your first question, there could be plenty of better ways to make rockets. They just haven't happened yet. On a), Musk has run SpaceX for over 15 years. Who'd let him do that for NASA? And where's the excellent decision making leadership that would put him in charge?

              On b), there's no such rocket-building program now. And the most likely course for such an organization to build massive manufacturing capability would be to spin off the project as a business corporation.

              On c), is a rebuttal question, you'll hear a lot later in this post. Namely, if that's such a good idea, then why hasn't it happened yet? We aren't operating in a vacuum, we have over a half a century of history which demonstrates that there's something deeply wrong with the traditional approaches to space development.

              2. While Musk isn't an idiot by any means, he's also not the only person capable of leading projects to build rockets, electric cars, etc etc. We know this because other people are leading other organizations that build rockets, electric cars, etc etc that are comparable to Musk's designs. Why is Musk the one in charge if other people can do his job well?

              How are you going to find these people? Is there an exam for Musk-level business/rocketry competence? And if there are all these people who can do Musk's job at companies that can do SpaceX's job, then why aren't they?

              3. Again, while Musk is a smart guy, he's not the one actually designing and building most things. He relies on a substantial staff of scientists, engineers, designers, and other professionals. If Musk was out of the equation entirely, why are you certain that this staff couldn't make rockets without him?

              Why didn't they before Musk came along? A huge thing that is missed here is that there has been plenty of time, going on 60 years, for private industry to develop a SpaceX style approach to space launch. They've long had the money, talent, and technology to make it happen. But they didn't. And this isn't just the US. We have at least half a dozen substantial national-level rocketry programs throughout the world that could have duplicated SpaceX's success any time in the past few decades and a bunch of large aerospace businesses with the resources. They didn't either.

              All the considerable initial talent that started SpaceX was hired from existing companies. Musk had a huge selling point that drew them in like flies - you could design and build rockets that would launch within your lifetime. SpaceX was here to launch rockets not to chase paper and public funding. That existed because there was a bored billionaire willing to sweat to make this company go forward.

              SpaceX is unique in that it has the intent to change the aerospace industry and the capability to do so. This could have happened any time in the past 60 years. A huge part of the reason it didn't is that the very tools you suggested here, like using a bloated, highly inefficient government agency, throwing a bunch of talent on the wall and hoping some of it sticks, or herding a zillion investor cats, never worked in the first place.

              The big thing missed with the "ten million dollars is good enough for anyone." ideology of the start of the thread is that it's not true. You can't do a lot of things on ten million dollars. SpaceX is just one of them. I think the power of the business world is that it's a rival source of creativity and industry at the society-level to government and academia. Here, we had more than half a century to find all those competent people and kickstart a massive development effort in space. Musk had a bunch of money kicking around, he was able to create a business that has changed space development for the better - bypassing the paraphernalia that was supposed to do that, but never worked right. By destroying the concentration of resources in the business world, we destroy a substantial agent of change in our society that doesn't come from the government power structure and bureaucracy.

              I would love to find something that works better, that gives the hidden talents of our world a place for expression. But the current state of things is better than hoping some government gets around to recognizing these people. We know because it didn't happen.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheReaperD on Friday February 21 2020, @04:14PM

        by TheReaperD (5556) on Friday February 21 2020, @04:14PM (#960694)

        But, then there are people like Keanu Reeves who, believing he had made more than enough money for his entire life in the first matrix movie, and learning how little the effects teams were paid, donated his entire salary for the second and their movies to the effects teams. Most of whom, retired multi-millionaires after the third movie.

        --
        Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
    • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:24PM (11 children)

      by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:24PM (#960492)

      While I agree with you in general, your sum - $10 million - is not anywhere enough in modern times. Consider. A friend of mine got into a car crash with with family inside and the medical bill itself is already above $2 millions.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:46PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2020, @11:46PM (#960499)

        That's only a problem if you are rich.

        • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 21 2020, @05:26AM

          by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @05:26AM (#960601)

          True. Rich have issues beyond common man fantasies.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 21 2020, @01:04AM (8 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 21 2020, @01:04AM (#960531)

        That to me is a symptom not of a problem with being a multimillionaire, but with a seriously screwed up for-profit health care system.

        Even so, assuming zero insurance and $3 million in medical bills when all is said and done, our hypothetical family still has $7 million left. And that $7 million, without work and any kind of sane investment strategy, leave our rich person with an income of $350K a year, again without working. Which is still enough to maintain a nice home or two, and/or pay a servant or two, and more to the point is still way above the living standard of an average American family.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 21 2020, @05:21AM (5 children)

          by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @05:21AM (#960596)

          Looks like you assume guaranteed 5% interest on the investment.
          Let's look at it from a long term prospective. Modern capitalism exists for say 400 years? 100 invested at 5% for 400 years would make 3*10^10 if my math is correct - 30 billion.
          So, either there are zero sane investors out there or the rate is way above the realistic one.

          --
          "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 21 2020, @03:54PM

            by Freeman (732) on Friday February 21 2020, @03:54PM (#960686) Journal

            400 years is about 4 very long lived people's life times. Yeah, I'm going with they don't care about what $$$ is going to be worth 400 years from now. That's also, assuming, the United States of America even lasts that long. It's not even 300 years old, yet.

            --
            "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:09PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:09PM (#960693)

            Let's say the person is a paranoid then, and follows one of two paths: Nothing but U.S. 1 Year T-bills, or just stuffs the remainder in their mattress. (I choose t-bills because if those collapse then the whole $7 mil is going to be useless anyway, as least to a USian.)
            On the T-Bill track: at the current 1.54% rate for a 1 year, that is a $107,800 return over a single year. Still plenty to do what Thexalon suggests.
            On a "stuff it in your mattress and dole it out": Over a 122 year lifetime that is $57,377 per year. Still more than sufficient to have roof and food over your head.

            In real world terms if you can't pull an average of 5 percent return off an investment portfolio you either have a serious mental defect and/or have hired nothing but crooks to advise you.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 21 2020, @04:26PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 21 2020, @04:26PM (#960703)

            5% return is pretty easy to get these days, according to anyone I've ever read or talked to in finance. The more aggressive approaches to investment get you closer to 7-10%, and the really risky approaches get you closer to 15-20%.

            Regarding your history: 400 years ago, there was nothing like a modern stock market, and very few things similar to the modern corporation. And yes, compound interest is a pretty impressive force, but you haven't accounted for inflation, revolutions that wipe out fortunes, spending, idiot heirs destroying the family fortune, and lots of other things that can go seriously wrong.

            Also, as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes pointed out, "in the long run, we are all dead".

            And of course the other option these hypothetical multimillionaires always have is to go back to working for a living. Crazy concept, I know.

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Friday February 21 2020, @07:14PM

              by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @07:14PM (#960799)

              The world is built in such a way that no passive income is possible over the long run (say you and your children) no matter what your financial adviser tells you. That's why most people who made serious money know that the only way to keep it is to make more money - a lot more. One can't stop, but only run faster.
              Besides, current rich plan to leave forever themselves - be it in physical or virtual form - and whoever gets there first will take it all while the initial entrance ticket would be very expencive.

              --
              "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 21 2020, @04:14PM (1 child)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday February 21 2020, @04:14PM (#960696) Journal

          One also forgets... if you have $10 million dollars then it would have been smarter to allocate $125,000-$150,000 per year to purchasing an individual medical insurance policy, reducing that $3 million bill to the $10,000 out of pocket cost and allow the insurer to pay the remainder of the $1 million after adjustments. One would still come out ahead on the deal if one was earning 5%. That's why the rich still bill insurance.

          --
          Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday February 21 2020, @07:18PM

            by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @07:18PM (#960801)

            There is also an uninsured counter party in the crash, which will sue.
            You are right - most likely all will be settled - but a target with free 10 million is very juicy for many lawyers.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday February 21 2020, @01:13PM (1 child)

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 21 2020, @01:13PM (#960661) Homepage Journal

    Exactly this. The proposed deal stinks of corruption: A sudden and unexpected rules change potentially allowing such a sale. A private equity firm with zero track record suddenly appears with $1 billion in its pockets. ISOC approves the sale, to the complete surprise and shock of its own members and international chapters.

    I hope some enterprising investigative type figures it out. It seems likely someone's (or several someones') back accounts have received large, mysterious deposits in the past year or two.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Friday February 21 2020, @04:25PM

      by TheReaperD (5556) on Friday February 21 2020, @04:25PM (#960702)

      No one has even been able to get the names of the financers (owners) of 'Ethos Capital.' Even if nothing else stank in the deal, that would.

      --
      Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit