Discuss mailing list

["John Kozlowski \(ShofarDomain.com\)" <John.Kozlowski AT ShofarDomain.com>]

Max,

There is much to consider, but I will limit myself due to the late hour
here.

Quality of leadership is a scary thought.  During their time Mao, Stalin,
Hitler, Mussolini, and so many more were considered great leaders and only
gained power by using their charisma to charm the masses.  I suggest that
these high quality leaders are not remember as fondly as they were during
their prime, nor the organizations they headed.

Quality leaders have built ICANN and the domain name industry into the
multi-billion dollar stranglehold it now is.  It takes true quality
leadership to build such a cash cow on something that is virtually free and
could be sold rather than rented.

I suggest that what is needed is quality articulators of the free and
independent nature of the Internet and OpenNIC's position in that.  Putting
an organization behind these people sets it up to be focused on being
perpetual and revenue producing in its own right, rather than focused on the
principle it initially promotes.  You can see numerous examples of this in
the pro-choice/pro-life, or the gun-rights/gun-control arena.  Backing those
who articulate this well needs to be addressed in other ways.

The scientists example is also a good one.  We must remember that there is a
difference between science and scientists.  The latter are as human as the
rest of the masses and are subject to emotions and pressures as any other.
You can see that clearly in the global warming/climate change debates.  We
humans are swayed by pressure on our checkbook, allure to pride, and
outright force more that reason.

Building a complementary organization with a similar legal structure to
ICANN, I suggest, is building the left-right paradigm articulated by Carroll
Quigley.  It gives the illusion of choice without true freedom.

Yes I do have a fear of organizations.  It is rather difficult to find one
that stands the test of time.  Individuals working separately and with
voluntary associations are far more resilient to infiltration and going
astray.

Am I an idealist, as Martin suggests?  Absolutely!  Otherwise, let's go make
some money with ICANN.

This is a worthy discussion, and I hope only to help think this through. 

Respectfully,

John Kozlowski

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org
[mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of Max Bellasys
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:44 PM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: Establishment of an OpenNIC
foundation using OpenNIC funds

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