undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointscryptonector6y ago0 comments

Operating .org in the public interest in the past doesn't mean that it has zero value today. "The fact that it’s worth even $1 billion shows" not so much that "[ISOC is] operating it in the interest of the ISOC" but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest.

How is ISOC a dubious charity?

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

ohashi6y ago· 2 in thread

Someone dug into their expenses, 69% overhead. https://twitter.com/ferdeline/status/1199380702233612288

cryptonectorOP6y ago

Do you know what ISOC does? It's a non-profit, yes, but it's not a charity. It exists to make things like the IETF and IRTF, and related administrative groups run. That's it. Of course its expenses are going to be mostly overhead -- what else would they be given their mission?

gowld6y ago

"mission-related" work is a separate category from "staff travel" aka vacations.

LegitShady6y ago· 2 in thread

>but that PIR may not be interested in operating .org in the public interest.

Oh who did this organization with a duty to steward .org for public interest sell it to? How can you separate that duty from the action of selling it to a third party without that duty?

It's an interesting hair to split.

cryptonectorOP6y ago

That's fair, but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped when they sold it to a party that looks set not to. "They were so good right until the point where they stopped being so good."

LegitShady6y ago

>but it's not proof that ISOC wasn't running .org in the public interest, only that if they had been, they stopped

The action selling it to another org without that duty is abdication of that duty and they should not have had authority to sell it.

The specific circumstances only make it worse.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse