Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

A reminder about 501(c)3, since sometimes people mention it, OpenNIC will 
need a board of directors, including a treasurer, keeping of records, and all 
before you hire a tax attorney to apply for 501(c)3 status with the IRS (and 
they may refuse, or revoke 501(c)3 status from OpenNIC later on). 

Also, the elected board of directors (or donors with enough money to have 
filed itemized deductions) will have the final say, not the "voters"

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:01:50 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org> wrote:

> Yes. In my opinion, OpenNIC’s purpose was to be a user-controlled 
> alternative to ICANN. The problem with ICANN wasn’t the rules they 
> implemented necessarily, but the opaque decision-making process behind 
> them, and their clear money grabbing practices. Not to mention their status 
> as a monopoly on the domain name system.
> 
> Developing an actual organizational structure is our path to becoming a 
> serious alternative to ICANN (as a related reminder, we did already vote to 
> form a 501(c)(3) organization, although that hasn’t materialized as of 
> yet). I know a lot of people here seem to be content with the status quo, 
> but it’s time to get back to our original purpose of building a serious 
> competitor.
> 
> Our current setup can be achieved by anybody with a computer and 5 minutes 
> to install BIND9. If OpenNIC is an organization in name only, if we aren’t 
> willing to enact policies that will help us form a united cause against 
> ICANN, why does OpenNIC need to exist at all? 
> 
> Jonah
> 
> > On Jul 25, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I've only been involved in OpenNIC since Prism-Break (2013 according to 
> > the mailing list archives), but to my knowledge OpenNIC was created to 
> > allow democratic, non-secret decision making as opposed to ICANN, right?
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > -Dan Q
> > 
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:36:57 -0500, kevin <krattai AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I've just been thinking about a problem with another community I'm
> >> involved in and while working through possible solutions, I remembered
> >> that corporate strategies yields corporate results.
> >> 
> >> As an original group of volunteerists, it's odd to look at the way
> >> openNIC has progressed in some areas, especially for a group that I
> >> believe wanted to get away from the bureaucracy that resulted in ICANN.
> >> 
> >> I'm not opposed to voting for things as a way to maintain focus on
> >> certain activities that will move a community forward, but when a vote
> >> is about developing a bureaucratic and corporate structure, it really
> >> doesn't make sense for a group of decentralized volunteerists.  In
> >> fact, it can be highly detrimental to such a group activity.  A lot of
> >> some of the more current "decisions" the group has voted on and the
> >> direction of much of our documentation, especially as "rules" rather
> >> than "guidelines", I wonder what the end result of openNIC might be, in
> >> relation to ICANN.
> >> 
> >> Anyhow, I just wanted to put that out there and find if maybe there's
> >> others active in the group who are thinking like I am, or if I'm really
> >> just an outlier in the community.
> >> 
> >> Kevin
> > 
> > 
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org