Discuss mailing list

[mike <mike AT pikeaero.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/12/2012 03:16 PM, Peter Green wrote:
[clip]
> I'm not exactly sure how that applies here, especially given the 
> commercial nature of the two companies mentioned.

I didn't mean for it to be an exact business model proposal in this
case, but merely as an illustration as to how you can pair up multiple
entities to shield one another in order to ensure the preservation of
the core interests while the front-end (outside facing) company takes
on any damage while under adversity. In the worst case you can cut the
front-end away and let it burn, and then start up another one.

[clip]
> Additionally,
>> liability is most definitely personal, unless the activities are 
>> performed by a corporation or similar entity.
>> 

Exactly what I said. If OpenNIC where to promote contracting with it's
member's to acquire and maintain TLDs, then OpenNIC becomes such a
liable 'similar entity'. Namely, it would become a voluntary
association class of collective which is engaged in commercial
enterprise where all members are exposed to the liabilities of the
collective. At least if I where going to sue OpenNIC, that's pretty
much how I would present it.

This is why I am saying, why not move those kind of commercial leaning
activities into a second entity that's more geared toward doing
commercial activities, and just leave OpenNIC the way it is? Shielding
OpenNIC from the whole commercial liability issue all together.

>> On the other hand, TLDs themselves and their operators could
>> pose a different set of circumstances if operated for a
>> commercial purpose.

Again, if commercial ventures where left to a second entity (or
plural, competition is good right?), then any commercial liability
would rest with those entities, and not the OpenNIC collective, right?

Don't get me wrong, guys, I'm not saying that what I've put forth is
the only way to do it. I'm saying that it is one way of thinking of
about it. There are obviously many ways to go all with their up and
down sides. I am proposing one of them. I'm mainly just cautioning
about jumping into anything resembling commercial ventures with 'gun's
a blazing' without considering all of the implications.

Until this is nailed down, I think it would be prudent that the
OpenNIC collective refrain from promoting the idea of contracting with
it's members for OpenNIC related services. I guess that's my core
point in all this.

- -- 
Regards,

Mike Sharkey,CEO
Pike Aerospace Research Corp. (Pike Aero)
420 Cross Street
Sudbury, Ontario
Canada    P3E-3W1

P:1+(705)586-2255
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQoWVJAAoJEA7EcEr0emgfWPYH/3+JXKBKHj70L+ENPEWS0bm3
EeJcFScNaNHWfig00mSzfXD0THEXUqeTAahd+bhBY3481bnls8UwNXEzlKhOVdRq
Ofcn44YGMPDy+BrcoEzuMyOk9sW1A2vklJRNYfh18spUxAHcpezWwRvEVsfTVEUA
s5Sb0+N6Aq6gmprczfs5l9cs0KzAsDa6gSUFdlQl4LGb7RiANrd6eB8M5fx+C98L
nBr7VLzOU8qrHjF6W36YXlFWwT6bWEHNakG0uFRvHGLIe4vjI5L/QzVpGEbG7v6U
4BDeVQyJnO394Isyq2uxJ9cT38wO9QGxFhg+JfUqHaLvq1FKzDFEnqLpxiRv6E4=
=dD7E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----