Serious question, what are the actual downsides of this, if any? Or is the backlash due to the "private equity" being associated with evil? Doesn't seem like anything is actually changing other than who issues .org?
> The power to implement processes to suspend domain names based on accusations of “activity contrary to applicable law.” The .ORG registry should not implement such processes without understanding how state actors frequently target NGOs with allegations of illegal activity.
Under the previous rules, the registry level could (more or less) resist being bullied into taking down a domain due to government pressure, though the government could implement a firewall and threaten other service providers. Now, though, a large country could say "we will block .org domains, or .org DNS resolutions, if you don't suspend an activist organization's domain globally," and there would then be a PROFIT MOTIVE to take down the domain GLOBALLY, as the value of the registrar would decrease if .org domains were blocked in that country. And this would be permitted by the 2019 rules. This gives censors tremendous leverage to implement censorship around the globe.
I'm all for the role of private equity in helping companies to grow - while there are certainly firms that operate in bad faith, the PE industry overall doesn't deserve the bad rap it gets in the media.
But IMO this sale should absolutely be disallowed from a humanitarian and international security perspective. The incentives are just too badly aligned.
This gives the registry huge leverage over you. That 3$ that it actually costs them to run it can increase to whatever price they think you will be willing to pay and you can't not pay it...you would lose your spot and identity on the internet. Its not like with registrars, like godaddy, ghandi, bluehost, etc... that you can switch between in like 24 hrs.
IIRC .orgs were price controlled, so the price couldn't rise, but with this takeover, the price controls have gone away.
Regardless, I don't see how moving .org's operations from a non-profit (PIR) to a private equity firm benefits anyone, except the owners of said private equity firm. You're basically taking something that could operate at-cost and giving it a mandate to turn a profit-- the only way that happens is if prices go up. Likely a lot.
Important point: just before this rigged bid went through, ICANN conveniently decided to remove the price cap for .org registry prices.
Yes, ICANN granted a monopoly to ISOC in the form of PIR, who have been allowed to increase prices consistently for years but at a capped rate. And they wanted more. As costs have gone down.
Then everyone at ICANN talks about not being a price regulator and free markets. Ignoring the fact it's a monopoly, and not one ISOC/PIR played any role in creating, it was a gift from ICANN. A perpetual, no bid, contract with ever increasing prices on a decreasing cost monopoly good.
Then there are people like me. My org domain is so old it can legally drink and soon be able to run for Congress. What is it worth to me? $200/year? $500? $1,000? I don’t know and it sucks to have to consider yet another astoundingly high cost of “living” in a world that keeps going up in cost.
In the aggregate, that's many, many millions of dollars going into Ethos Capital's pockets at the expense of charities and other non-profit organizations.
Who says it stops at $15, too?
They could charge x.org $15 and y.org $150,000.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_s...
You can do the math.
The worldwide non-commercial Internet being controlled by an unaccountable private corporation is evil on its face. Burden is on someone to prove otherwise.
The few other types this happened, it has resulted in exorbitant prices across the board.