Discuss mailing list

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

"Pointless" also referring to a waste of attorney's fees.

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 22:20:30 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> Well, first you need to incorporate before even thinking about (annually I 
> think) applying for 501(c)3. In fact a 501(c)3 is pointless unless you're 
> trying to attract large donations (as in, hundreds of thousands of 
> dollars). Also, who would get the money?
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:16:45 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > --------
> > 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