I can tell that you really want me to believe that ICANN and the US government are the problem, and that Handshake is the solution. But you still have not addressed how Handshake solves the three main problems I have with the .org sale:
* The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect.
* The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek").
* To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator.
You have not convinced me that Handshake will address any of these things. Therefore, Handshake is not germane to the discussion of what to do about .org.
> The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect.
When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist.
In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor.
Handshake absolutely makes TLDs a free market.
> The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek").
I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled).
> To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator.
If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork.
The people hold the power.
Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it!
> When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist.
> In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor.
I want .org name prices to remain capped at $10, and I want its stewards to take steps to ensure that there isn't a profit motive. That's a big part of what this uproar is -- lots of cash-strapped organizations whose Web presence depends on .org continuing to be operated as it was would harmed even if the prices of .org names were set by an idealized free market. This is not something Handshake addresses.
> I agree with this. Again, free markets control this. Consider the difference between the market for gum (market controlled) versus the market for patented drugs (single actor controlled).
The "free-ness" of the market is orthogonal to the problem at hand. The problem here is corruption and rent-seeking. Handshake not only fails to address this, but also arguably makes it more prone to happen.
> If the community collectively decides to fork, it can fork.
If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we wouldn't need Handshake. We'd just run an alternative DNS root, but with a governing charter that is less prone to corruption. No need to introduce a blockchain to solve a fundamentally social problem.
This approach would also be highly disruptive and would hurt a lot of people over the course of its execution. Why are you so adamantly opposed to simply stopping the sale of .org to rent-seekers? Stopping the sale is, by far, the least painful and least disruptive solution.
> Thanks for pointing out these questions and allowing me to directly address how Handshake solves these problems, and please keep them coming as it helps us to better understand what information isn’t well explained, and explain it!
Except, you haven't addressed a single one of my problems.
> lots of cash-strapped organizations whose Web presence depends on .org continuing to be operated as it was
Actually, this is the problem. Cash-strapped organizations should not be forced to pay rent for something that should be owned by them, or the people or the internet at large.
This is something Handshake addresses.
> If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we wouldn't need Handshake. We'd just run an alternative DNS root, but with a governing charter that is less prone to corruption. No need to introduce a blockchain to solve a fundamentally social problem.
"Less prone to corruption" is an interesting phrase. We've tried, and tried, throughout the history of mankind to create organizations that are "less prone to corruption." Ultimately, it's hard to solve if you choose to do it a social way.
Blockchain uniquely solves the issue here and, for the world, the way Handshake approaches the replacement of the root zone, will be the birth of the first time, in mankind, a actual system used by all people is powered, at the core (root), by blockchain.
There are a lot of made up problems that people are trying to solve with "blockchain" projects, and then there's Handshake, a consensus driven decentralized dns root and certificate authority, that helps the coordination of the internet namespace which isn't owned by any one person, but the collective of us all.
> Actually, this is the problem. Cash-strapped organizations should not be forced to pay rent for something that should be owned by them, or the people or the internet at large.
So Handshake does not permit name renewals? What happens, then, if some rich speculator just buys up all the rest of .org and rents them out at waaaay higher rates than $10/year? This is the problem we're dealing with right here -- ICANN permitting rent-seeking. Handshake certainly doesn't stop this; in fact, by design, it rejects the very idea that this could be a bad thing.
> "Less prone to corruption" is an interesting phrase. We've tried, and tried, throughout the history of mankind to create organizations that are "less prone to corruption." Ultimately, it's hard to solve if you choose to do it a social way.
So you're proposing that instead that DNS be governed by an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners? You'll have to forgive me if I'm not jumping for joy at the idea.
> Blockchain uniquely solves the issue here and, for the world, the way Handshake approaches the replacement of the root zone, will be the birth of the first time, in mankind, a actual system used by all people is powered, at the core (root), by blockchain.
You have already made it perfectly clear that you, personally, believe everyone would be better off if we all just surrendered DNS to an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners. You can spare me the blockchain woo-woo.
Please go back and read my comments on corruption and rent-seeking, since it does not appear that you read them. An unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners is not going to solve this problem. A blockchain is not going to solve this problem. Technology is not going to solve this problem.
> There are a lot of made up problems that people are trying to solve with "blockchain" projects, ..
Sorry to interrupt this sentence, but Handshake is very much one of these solution-in-search-of-a-problem blockchain systems. We already have DNS. I'd rather we just stop the sale of .org and punish those responsible than destroy and re-implement a core piece of Internet infrastructure with blockchain woo-woo operated by an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners.
> and then there's Handshake, a consensus driven decentralized dns root and certificate authority, that helps the coordination of the internet namespace which isn't owned by any one person, but the collective of us all.
Calling it now: if deployed at scale in the absence of government oversight and regulation, Handshake will devolve into an unelected oligarchy of unaccountable miners, just like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I would bet all of my worldly possessions on it.
* The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect.
* The control and governance of TLDs should be handled by a non-corrupt governing body with the powers to ensure that only well-behaved operators may control TLD domains (where "well-behaved" can mean "will not rent-seek").
* To enforce this in the face of corrupt actors, the governing body for TLDs needs to be able to take back control of a TLD from a corrupted operator.
You have not convinced me that Handshake will address any of these things. Therefore, Handshake is not germane to the discussion of what to do about .org.