Discuss mailing list

[Larry Brower <larry AT maxqe.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 12/22/2010 04:51 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Brian Koontz <brian AT pongonova.net> wrote:
>>
>> If anything, maybe what OpenNIC needs is an OpenNIC Foundation:  A
>> legal entity that can represent OpenNIC (if the membership choses for
>> it to do so), maintain funds and donations for OpenNIC operations, and
>> make recommendations to the membership concerning the continued
>> operations of OpenNIC.
> 
> If I may comment, I think what you are suggesting here is not a
> corporation but rather a charitable Trust.  A Trust is a very old
> institution recognized in English common law (since the crusades,
> I believe) and it does not require any specific registration with a
> government entity.  You just need to create a trust declaration,
> decide what assets to put in the trust initially, and have the initial
> set of trustees sign the document in the presence of a notary
> public.
> 
> Courts do have the power to modify trust documents in certain
> cases and can sometimes remove and appoint trustees.  They also
> have the power to decide whether a trust is truly a charitable entity
> (just saying so in your trust document is not enough).  Charitable
> trusts have certain advantages over other kinds of trusts in that they
> can exist in perpetuity.
> 

Perhaps OpenNIC should consult an Attorney prior to creating any type of
entity just to ensure that nothing is overlooked that could turn around
and bite the organization at a later date. As the courts are fond of
pointing out "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse"


> The ability to receive tax-deductible contributions is something that
> the IRS decides on a case by case basis.  The easiest way to get
> their approval is by chartering a 501c3 corporation but then you get
> yourself under government jurisdiction right from the start.
> 

We could always consult a Tax Attorney or just outright as the IRS. Not
to mention the Organization could be chartered in a different
jurisdiction that has more lenient taxation laws.




>> I'm also beginning to rethink my position on servers not being
>> anonymous.  So long as servers pass the various tests thrown at them
>> to ensure they are resolving (and not sending out malicious query
>> results), who cares who owns/operates them?  A bad T2 just gets
>> removed from the list.
> 
> I think you are coming up against the fundamental tension between
> privacy and accountability that will come up again and again.  Personally,
> I think that people should be findable if they misbehave, but you need
> an organization that will stand up and protect the anonymity of its members
> when needed.


There definitely should be accountability. And as the EFF has pointed
out there should be a clearly defined data retention and destruction
policy in effect.


> 
>> The more I think about it, the more I believe the Robin had it right
>> the first time around.  There is something to be said for a
>> decentralized anarchy of nameservers.
> 
> You still need someone to adjudicate the votes.  I think the current 
> informal
> structure will start to show strains if this organization begins to grow.
> 
> -Pete
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJNGpcdAAoJEBgaXYoZ++87kbcH/AtX3CZOHb2AaLt25JhI6ZCz
GzlUT0dTtECc+LHw1wvSFNm7js+8fD1bTQCFoiAaMrAiwl6U1fUYijbrETXJH5P2
vFnV+Y379wPf8E6jVjhHMtu83OJOm5LMqDC40PCr76hr2w29C1jdRYGhvtAk8j1C
pioGyYvmUsi4xXgYl8tpHkq0dYgzRCCL+JeKW968P80lv1R2lNtUUt/u6FxCGIBh
OToFVhyPirycUUYZYWZoxTyU5dyvgTbSaL5Ck1k1ISOwY4M+Z3KLOTL6kXvU+b8h
Jcj0lA5MGHCaThRcLY40vb0aBavT3wWfwP/uOal1PJGw27Gov5lETwOu84Xepac=
=XnEz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----