ICANN demands transparency from others over .org deal. As for itself… well, not so much Three weeks after the Internet Society announced the controversial sale of the .org internet registry to an unknown private equity firm, the organization that has to sign off on the deal has finally spoken publicly. In a letter [PDF] titled “Transparency” from the general counsel of domain name system overseer ICANN to the …
That is an impressive list of the things that are going wrong in this particular instance.
It is also a damning indictment of ICANN's attitude towards respecting its own rules. Transparency is a cornerstone of ICANN ? Really ? It may have been at one point, but if it's still there it's buried under a mountain of hypocrisy.
ICANN, bah !
hey if you can pile a whole bunch of obstructions (boxes, curtains, plywood, brick walls, etc.) in the way of a window then technically the window is still transparent.
ICANN is totally transparent, it just cant help that there happens to be all of these obstructions getting in the way of you actually seeing what you want to see. Totally not their fault... </sarcasm>
as I was reading the early paragraphs, and the stench was confirmed by the middle as El Reg covered the corporate nepotism.
It's obvious what is going on, the "transaction" is nothing more than a secretly-applied smokescreen to move profits from one entity to another, an entity where a few have conveniently positioned themselves to gain massive monetary benefits.
It was pretty obvious before but now the doubt is screaming at you with a 100,000 watt sound system.
And the continuing issue? Is that we, the People, constantly allow this. Heck, a good percentage of the population VOTE for this.
"ICANN has not answered / has not explained"
Because they can!
We should dissolve ICANN and build a new Internet governance system, with strong safeguards against greed and profit-seeking. The old ways only worked in the quaint old days of innocence, not now all the hungry foxes have lined up to mind the fat, juicy geese.
This is not an isolated incident, this is a tendency. It will only get worse, and while their first attempt was clumsy and heavy-handed, they will get better at it.
I wonder if the .org sale was influenced by the recent closure of OSRN.
A shame it closed, it was more than just another alt-root: http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_i_am_participating_in_the_orsn_project
Properly interesting, and lays out the utter shambles that this is turning into. But in precis... morally bankrupt Americans sell off anything and everything for profit, to the detriment of everyone else who benefits from it? Does that sum it up?
No doubt being registered in Delaware, there will be a while host of shell companies, shady backdoor payments, payoffs and dubious agreements in place - which is why there is a lack of answers coming from the key protagonists.
Keep digging.
It is very interesting that the day the .org price cap was removed was the day before that a shell corporation was registered in Delaware. There is no way that any person involved in "Ethos" Capital lives in Delaware. It is not a long drive from New York City or Washington, DC. But it is still a drive. Do you really think that the brains behind this shell company thought of a name, research the name to make sure nobody else used it, gathered like-minded billionaires, went to Delaware, obtained a mailing address in Delaware, and completed all legal paperwork in less than 48 hours? This whole thing stinks of cronyism.
There are companies whose entire purpose is to jump through all the hoops to found a Delaware corporation(complete with mailing address), so the only question there is how long it takes the state to process the application. They almost certainly had everything ready to go before the vote, though.
it would be great if this "affair" gets picked up by politicians and mainstream media. Shake or stir a little, and the worms start wriggle frantically. Upturn a few stones, shine some light, and more wriggly surprises for your viewing pleasure. Even if it were to benefit those politicians and media, the side-effect might be getting to the bottom of this (as for now successful) heist.
For that, it needs a few well-regarded (and charitable in the traditional sense) dot-orgs to (a) notice and (b) to start making a noise about it. I guess the main problem is that ones big enough to have a bit of media "pull" are also big enough to easily weather any price changes. And the smaller ones - where this will really hit hard - are probably to busy actually being charitable, and any shouting they do is likely about their actual charitable focus, not their domain name.
Maybe El Reg should start asking some dot org charities - preferably heath or community support ones - for comment ... and maybe kick start a bit of mainstream press attention.
It doesn't make sense to me that this new company is merely interested in domain name renewal fees. Why go through all of this shady-looking nonsense for $10 per organization per year (or even $100/org/year).
Registrars can charge all sorts of other fees, and I think this is what they are more interested in extracting from their million-odd victims.
But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.
that's the numbers affixed to any book by the editors, a "requirement" if you ever intend to sell your book commercially, also for eBooks.
In the USA, there is a private company handling those. Thus, registering a ISBN costs you $5 per each if you buy 100 of them. Up to $29.50 if you get the cheapest package of 10. No lower amount. And plenty plenty other "offers" by the nice people of https://www.myidentifiers.com.
Meanwhile, In Canada they are free. Also in the UK. Most of the civilized world has lower "prices" for this necessary service than the US (what else is new?) with fewer attempts to scam you than Bowker and others offer. For example, a favorite such is to buy a bunch, and then resell them by the unit for, say, $49.99.
OK, Mexico requires some complex paperwork initially, but from then on it's like $3 per each, and you don't need to buy more than one at a time, etc.
How "Bowker", whatever that company is, got this deal, and whether they intend to sit on that cow forever is a shame on the ISBN organization.
The whole process is automated, based on very simple scripts, the real cost is at most a few cents, all the rest is taking advantage of the people.
Of course Amazon would not play the game, and they invented their own registry system.
ISBNs are used by publishers, not editors.
And they are an international system - an ISBN issued in any country works just fine in every country. So even if you live in the USA, if you don't fancy paying Bowkers, you can import one from Canada or the UK with a minimal amount of hoop-jumping.
(You'll need a mailing address in the country, but how hard is that?)
So, in practice the monopoly is only as damaging as its users let it be.
- First, that's VERY different from running the domain registry as a non-profit. Yearly inflation is far below 10% and, arguably, progressing technology should make the whole thing cheaper in the future.
- Second, has anyone heard about the exponential law? It scales quite nicely.
- Third, how should anybody trust those guys. This story nicely illustrates that when those guys see money they are willing to jump high and far to collect it.
This whole community model with "stakeholders" in charge is clearly unsuited to regulate a billion dollar industry. It was a nice idea back when it was a hobby, but once we talk about real money, guess whose stakes those representatives are going to hold? It's corrupt and the fact that we can see it so clearly just shows that they are bad at corruption.
John Levine, a member of the ISOC board, posted a rebuttal to earlier Register coverage of the PIR sale to Ethos on RISKS. (Which I think is an odd place to discuss it; he framed it as "this isn't the end of the world", but that's kind of the opposite of the usual tone of RISKS.) His post includes links to a couple of pieces by Ethos about the sale.
Levine is a person of significant standing in the community. I don't ignore his opinions lightly.
Now, I didn't find Levine's arguments, nor the ones from Ethos, particularly convincing. They do challenge some of the factual claims and allegations made by the Reg; I haven't looked for independent confirmation either way. But if, like me, you find the PIR sale disturbing, you might want to read Levine's piece and the two he links to, to see if they alter your understanding of the situation.
It is possible to interpret this whole mess as: ISOC wasn't interested in continuing to run PIR; they wanted funds for their core mission; the founders of Ethos (and, even interpreted in the best light, I don't trust that bunch a bit) saw an opportunity to snap up PIR and turn .org into a profit center. We should still complain that ISOC accepted the Ethos demand for secrecy and we may still be critical of the decision to sell PIR to Ethos, even if that was the "best" proposal by whatever criteria the ISOC board used. That arguably puts ISOC in a somewhat better light - indifferent rather than mendacious. It doesn't make Ethos look any better, of course, but I can't think what might.
ISOC’s Board typically meets for one or two days but on its website it claims to have held a Board meeting for 14 straight days (October 28 - November 10). ... That not only seems extremely unlikely...
The ISOC Board, as anyone could discover, regularly meets by teleconference, possibly using this Internet thingy. There's nothing unlikely about them doing so daily for two weeks during such a critical discussion. As an ISOC member, I'd expect nothing less.
And on the substance: Andrew Sullivan has said since the beginning that ISOC is bound by an NDA and can only release what the purchaser agrees to release. That really isn't unusual or surprising in a deal worth more than a billion. ICANN is right to ask for clarifications, of course. (I don't think I've ever written a sentence before starting "ICANN is right".)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
