Discuss mailing list

[Max Bellasys <info AT bellasys.com>]

Without offering a case of my own devising, I would respond with a critical 
point to consider regarding this comparison between the OpenNIC’s 
incorporation and the impotence of the American Church. 

I believe it is the quality of the leadership that provides the quality of 
the organization in question. This is a truism, and applies generally to any 
organization. However I believe it applies specifically here.

I assert that the only way for one entity to have impact (or bearing) on 
another is to relate within the same system. Perhaps it’s enough that the 
“system” is the internet, in one regard, and in that respect the OpenNIC has 
bearing and consequence already. 

However the case brought forward is whether this entity (OpenNIC) will 
incorporate and increase it’s scope to include a footprint in the same system 
that ICANN plays in (as well as other international entities) and whether 
that is a desirable move on behalf of its members. This is an increase in 
scope. 

I am not arguing that there isn’t any impact or negative consequences (new 
limits, etc.), however I don’t believe your comment fairly summarizes the 
move, and it sounds fear-based rather than circumspect. 

If you have specific issues to present and can offer members insights they 
may not have, perhaps your concerns could be better supported. As someone who 
understands the comparisons you have made, I don’t find your reasoning 
particularly compelling. 

You are likely dealing with scientists here. I don’t see how drawing a 
comparison between the political motivations of a former american president 
relates to a group of free members deciding their future status. I must have 
missed the part where some international organization drew our attention 
offsides. I think the motion has considerable benefits, possibly obtaining 
greater reach, and possibly a more substantial presence in the eyes of 
investors for donations. 

Be warned that the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. are essentially owned by the 
same interests, I can specifically recommend against these sources. While I 
personally have incorporated in the US, and I don’t always recommend against 
it, I know enough about the policy and the (anti) privacy laws to say “NO!” 

Sweden seems like a good choice, but I can’t offer much else on positive 
alternatives. 

John, I respectfully ask you to provide more evidentiary examples for 
consideration. 

Thanks 

Max Bellasys

On Dec 25, 2014, at 5:36 PM, John Kozlowski (ShofarDomain.com) 
<John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com> wrote:

> While I respect the thoughts about a non-profit, I urge rejection.  The
> church in the United States is the primary example.  A carrot was offered in
> the 50s by the then Senator, and later President, Lyndon Johnson to have
> churches incorporate.  The goal was to mussel them and it was very
> successful.  In 2014 most US churches are effectively entertainment and
> marketing organizations.  Their primary goal is to get more members, but
> then will not contend from the Scripture they are supposedly based on if it
> has the hint of threat to the corporate status.
> 
> Apply that to history to OpenNIC.  Do you want to be free, without the
> oversight of a national body that can offer limits on what you do?  Or do
> you want to be like ICANN and be a corporate entity?  Do you want to
> voluntarily put your hand out to be potentially cut off if you do the wrong
> thing?  Do you want to give ICANN perhaps a legal means to impact or
> shutdown OpenNIC?  Right now members can be impacted, but there is no single
> entity to bring down.
> 
> Whereas there are clearly difference among the participants in OpenNIC, this
> must be seen as a strength.  Incorporating could bring a unity to the group,
> but I suggest that would also make it as impotent as the American Church.  I
> don't think incorporation outside of the US will bring any relief to this.
> 
> As an Anarco-Christian, I will gladly argue the case for Christ in another
> venue.  It is hard to do so in an American Church.  In the same way, I will
> argue here that OpenNIC is an unorganized group of DIFFERING people with a
> SIMILAR but not identical purposes.  OpenNIC is stronger this way and I
> suggest it stay this way.  Yes there are issues, weaknesses, and cash
> problems that keep the impact limited today.  However, I contend that
> incorporation is the death knell of OpenNIC.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> John Kozlowski
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org
> [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of Brian Koontz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 10:30 PM
> To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
> Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: Establishment of an OpenNIC
> foundation using OpenNIC funds
> 
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 04:38:07PM -0600, Quinn Wood wrote:
>> If creating a working group, or any kind of bureaucracy, they need to do
> the work.
> 
> Yes, but they also must have the mandate to make the decisions needed to
> carry out the task.
> 
>  --Brian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org