<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">I found it interesting as well.<div><br></div><div>I think it’s worth understanding that the analyst doesn’t understand ISOC’s goal. The motivation driving ISOC is to disentangle itself from the domain name. Maximizing revenue is a strong, but dependent goal. From my observation and conversations, ISOC is completely uninterested in maximizing revenue to a degree which would require that they stay in the business of selling domain names, or stay dependent on the ebbs and flows of that business. </div><div><br></div><div>So some of his recommendations are substantially off the mark. <br><div dir="ltr"> <div> -Bill</div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 2, 2019, at 09:43, Ayden Férdeline <ayden@ferdeline.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>A venture capitalist and ex-Mckinsey consultant offers some thoughts on the ISOC sale of PIR, and concludes that ISOC has undervalued PIR by about US $1 billion. This analysis is not perfect (it seems to conflate revenue with earnings) but is interesting nonetheless:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/">https://lancewiggs.com/2019/12/01/did-isoc-leave-1-billion-on-the-table/</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes, <br></div><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><span>---</span><br><span>To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net></span><br><span>List help: <https://riseup.net/lists></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>