Discuss mailing list

[subhuman <discipline AT gmx.net>]

How much I would like to consent! We, the valorous idealists, the last 
remaining knights of free internet, waving the flag of humanity amidst the 
raging sea of capitalism. Proud, but bound to perish. It is an ideal you 
describe, very romantic and heartwarming - and I'm not being sarcastic. How 
much I would like to consent!

If reality just weren't so real.

--martin



On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:36:04 -0500
"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
> 
> 


-- 
The world is such a nasty place to be.