11 ms·

I don’t understand how this “sale” is legal in the first place. PIR is a legal 501(c)3 nonprofit. You can’t really sell a nonprofit to a for-profit company exc

by ptest1 7y ago

I don’t understand how this “sale” is legal in the first place. PIR is a legal 501(c)3 nonprofit. You can’t really sell a nonprofit to a for-profit company except in unusual and rare circumstances. In California, I know you need a letter from the state Attorney General to do so. There are also federal restrictions on sales like this, particularly around self-dealing transactions. This transaction was obviously self dealing. Someone seriously needs to dig into this. The PIR board members could be in big legal trouble. And also ICANN, which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit as well and is subject to self-dealing restrictions. This is obvious, plain as day corruption. In the business world, not much can be done. But these are two nonprofits (PIR and ICANN), so something can and should be done. These kind of transactions aren’t normally legal. Like, just read the examples of what an illegal self dealing transaction is in the eyes of the IRS: https://boardsource.org/resources/private-benefit-private-inurement-self-dealing/ https://boardsource.org/resources/private-benefit-private-in... “Keep Our City Beautiful, a membership organization, plants a city alley with elaborate flowering bushes. The alley is not heavily traveled but the decorations increase the attractiveness of the city’s main restaurant whose owner is a member of the organization.” ICANN clearly engaged in an illegal self dealing transaction by allowing their former CEO to enrich himself with a deal that would otherwise not be possible. Edit: please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21658324 for a “what you can do right now”

zrm 7y ago
Not only that, isn't there a sense in which a TLD is not actually property at all? The DNS operates by consensus. There are a bunch of root server operators who all agree who operates the .org TLD and then list those NS records in their root servers. What stops people from getting together, agreeing that a private equity firm would be a poor steward of the .org TLD, choosing somebody else to operate it instead, and pointing the NS records there instead? Nobody really owns the DNS. It's a thing that works because there is a broad consensus on how it should work. If the consensus is that this is a dumb idea then what's stopping people from choosing not to go along with it? And staging a coup over this would set a good precedent that these types of flagrant money grabs are not to be tolerated.
- wwweston 7y ago
  It’s correct enough to say that DNS is an application of consensus, but rather than considering that a distinction vs property, one might consider asking themselves in what sense property itself isn’t consensus.
  - zrm 7y ago
    Property is not based on consensus. Even if millions of people think Jeff Bezos has too much money, with nowhere near consensus that he should have it, a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff. The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace conflicts through forks. But that doesn't mean you can't make a change to fix a mistake, it only means you need to get enough support behind it for it to become the consensus position.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      However, a sufficiently large mob can easily take everything Bezos has, no matter what any court says. Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws. If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.
      - zrm 7y ago
        A thing doesn't exist by consensus just because a consensus against it could destroy it, because a consensus against pretty much anything could destroy it. What makes it exist by consensus is that a rough consensus in favor of it is required to sustain it. This isn't true of things like property rights which could be sustained even with only minority support provided the minority had a sufficient military advantage. It is true of DNS because consensus is inherently required to prevent it from fragmenting and ceasing to exist as a single global namespace.
yspeak 7y ago
> PIR is a legal 501(c)3 nonprofit. You can’t really sell a nonprofit to a for-profit company except in unusual and rare circumstances. Not true. Shareholders are not required to be non-profit. > There are also federal restrictions on sales like this, particularly around self-dealing transactions. This transaction was obviously self dealing. How ? And corporate law is state law not federal. Feds only regulate securities not corporate governance of private companies. This is also not a tax concern. Do you really think they did not consult tax attorneys ? > Someone seriously needs to dig into this. The PIR board members could be in big legal trouble. And also ICANN, which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit as well and is subject to self-dealing restrictions. There's nothing going on here. And really is the world coming to an end if in the worst case scenario 10 years from now a nonprofit pays $26 a year for a domain rather than $10. Any nonprofit is going to have other expenses much higher than this. There are more important things to worry about. > This is obvious, plain as day corruption. In the business world, not much can be done. But these are two nonprofits (PIR and ICANN), so something can and should be done. These kind of transactions aren’t normally legal. Hyperbole again. Where is the backup for ,"not normally legal"? All other statements made are demonstrably false.

by ptest1 7y ago

zrm 7y ago

Not only that, isn't there a sense in which a TLD is not actually property at all? The DNS operates by consensus. There are a bunch of root server operators who all agree who operates the .org TLD and then list those NS records in their root servers. What stops people from getting together, agreeing that a private equity firm would be a poor steward of the .org TLD, choosing somebody else to operate it instead, and pointing the NS records there instead? Nobody really owns the DNS. It's a thing that works because there is a broad consensus on how it should work. If the consensus is that this is a dumb idea then what's stopping people from choosing not to go along with it? And staging a coup over this would set a good precedent that these types of flagrant money grabs are not to be tolerated.

wwweston 7y ago
It’s correct enough to say that DNS is an application of consensus, but rather than considering that a distinction vs property, one might consider asking themselves in what sense property itself isn’t consensus.
- zrm 7y ago
  Property is not based on consensus. Even if millions of people think Jeff Bezos has too much money, with nowhere near consensus that he should have it, a court will still convict anybody who tries to take his stuff. The DNS really does operate on consensus. There is nobody forcing everybody to do it a particular way. We get real consensus because everybody has a strong interest in not creating global namespace conflicts through forks. But that doesn't mean you can't make a change to fix a mistake, it only means you need to get enough support behind it for it to become the consensus position.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    However, a sufficiently large mob can easily take everything Bezos has, no matter what any court says. Property is absolutely based on consensus, property beyond anything you control with your direct person is very much one of those polite fictions society collectively agrees to, like money and laws. If the large majority of people, for whatever reason, decided to stop agreeing, such fictions would cease to exist.
    - zrm 7y ago
      A thing doesn't exist by consensus just because a consensus against it could destroy it, because a consensus against pretty much anything could destroy it. What makes it exist by consensus is that a rough consensus in favor of it is required to sustain it. This isn't true of things like property rights which could be sustained even with only minority support provided the minority had a sufficient military advantage. It is true of DNS because consensus is inherently required to prevent it from fragmenting and ceasing to exist as a single global namespace.

yspeak 7y ago

> PIR is a legal 501(c)3 nonprofit. You can’t really sell a nonprofit to a for-profit company except in unusual and rare circumstances. Not true. Shareholders are not required to be non-profit. > There are also federal restrictions on sales like this, particularly around self-dealing transactions. This transaction was obviously self dealing. How ? And corporate law is state law not federal. Feds only regulate securities not corporate governance of private companies. This is also not a tax concern. Do you really think they did not consult tax attorneys ? > Someone seriously needs to dig into this. The PIR board members could be in big legal trouble. And also ICANN, which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit as well and is subject to self-dealing restrictions. There's nothing going on here. And really is the world coming to an end if in the worst case scenario 10 years from now a nonprofit pays $26 a year for a domain rather than $10. Any nonprofit is going to have other expenses much higher than this. There are more important things to worry about. > This is obvious, plain as day corruption. In the business world, not much can be done. But these are two nonprofits (PIR and ICANN), so something can and should be done. These kind of transactions aren’t normally legal. Hyperbole again. Where is the backup for ,"not normally legal"? All other statements made are demonstrably false.