Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org>]

I think this is why we aren’t a 501(c)(3) yet, but I was just saying that 
forming such an organization was at one point voted on and ratified.

Jonah

> On Jul 25, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org