Skickat från min iPhone 23 nov. 2019 kl. 06:36 skrev Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx>:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36 PM Leif Johansson < leifj@xxxxxx> wrote: Skickat från min iPhone I certainly hope the new income stream is not 'roughly equivalent'. The PIR revenue has been good to date but there is no guarantee that it will remain so in the future. Unless I am missing something, the business point of the change was to diversify.
I don’t think you are missing anything.
The other benefit to making the change in my view is to end the conflict of interest between specifying standards affecting the DNS and running a DNS registry.
While this change may have consequences for PIR name holders, their interests are not the ones that the ISOC trustees are primarily concerned with protecting.
I’m not sure I see this last part tho... Aren’t .org name holders as much Internet citizens as the rest of us? The stated goal of the ISOC is to be open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy.
To be open means to be accessible for all. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see a possible outcome where .org domain holders will be paying moar money. At some point economy becomes a discriminator..
This is why I was curious about how the ISOC mission and vision carries over to the new owners (who I’m sure are super nice ppl!)
Yes, .org name holders are part of the Internet community, but they're not the *only* part of the community.. There are a bit over 10 million .org domains -- vs. billions of Internet users. The mission of the Internet Society is on that latter scale, and has a much broader and deeper impact on peoples' lives than simply leasing domain names.
It's important to view this change in that context. In exchange for, I admit, some risk that .org prices might rise (though it's far from clear that this transaction changes that risk), we get a firmer foundation for the bigger, global mission of ISOC.
--Richard
Ok so I couldn’t let it go just yet ;-)
Yours is a perfectly rational argument if you think of the domain fee as a tax (which it sorta is).
In exchange for a moderate increase in taxation we will be able to pay for the common good. Excellent!
A compelling argument was even made to me that a moderate increase might even have the effect to push back on domain tasters! I’m Swedish and 200% down with playing taxation games for the greater good (google Systembolaget for a fun parallel).
However - and I can’t believe I get to bring up 8th grade social studies on the IETF list twice in a matter of months - No taxation without representation :-)
This deal for all its economic benefits, is essentially outsourcing taxation which is why I asked if representation came with the deal or not.
Btw the lists where this is apparently supposed to be discussed are closed afaict.
Cheers Leif
I’ll shut up now :-) Leif Dear colleagues,
I'm writing with my Internet Society President & CEO hat on. I've
heard some questions in the halls and so on about the proposed
transaction in respect of PIR, and I wanted to make something clear.
ISOC's recently announced PIR transaction does not affect its
long-standing commitment to the IETF. There is no negative change in
our support of and alignment with the IETF. In fact, ISOC and IETF
are totally aligned on the strategic importance of consensus-based
open Internet standards and the principles by which IETF operates --
and will continue to stand by IETF to ensure their continued success.
The only thing that changes here, for the Internet Society, is that we
switch one source of income for another, roughly equivalent income
stream. From the IETF's point of view this change should make no
difference.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
sullivan@xxxxxxxx
+1 416 731 1261
|
