Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org>]

I agree, it’s more wishful thinking on my part. I don’t think it’s too likely 
we’ll incorporate in any form in the near future. If the community were to 
split over a decision like this, I don’t think there’d be enough members on 
either side of the “fork” for it to be worthwhile, I’d definitely advocate 
against any kind of incorporation at the moment.

Jonah

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 3:42 AM, <vv AT cgs.pw> <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:
> 
> It's a little jarring to hear constant reference
> to 501(c)3 as if we're all Americans. If this is
> supposed to be an international group then it is
> somewhat off-color to make such an assumption.
> The US is not the center of the world.
> 
> That said, the US may well be a suitable place
> for this organization, though I would think that
> some European country, or even Canada, would be
> better - if for no other reason than it would be
> further out of the reach of ICANN.
> 
> As for annual application, I don't know how it
> works in the US, but here you just need to file
> an annual report once you're registered. That's
> actually pretty easy. I'm on a number of boards
> for small societies and it's not much of a burden.
> However, being a registered non-profit does carry
> some responsibilities which I'm not convinced that
> OpenNIC is able to meet. There are certainly some
> hoops to go through to even get there in the first
> place. This will all have different aspects in
> different countries, though I imagine the basic
> "Societies Act", or whatever it's called there,
> would contain similar ideas. We just had a major
> re-write here in Canada and it's been a lot of work
> for us to figure out what we all need to do to
> get in line with the new act. I found some very
> good on-line legal breakdowns and guidelines for 
> groups such as mine who can't afford lawyers, so
> it's not as onerous as some might think.
> 
> To me that's all just an intellectual exercise
> though, because if OpenNIC were to incorporate
> then it would be the end of the "open" part of
> how we work. Whether that's good or bad or
> indifferent is not the issue to me, but rather
> that if it happened it would probably be a fork
> of the present group. Do we have enough members
> to split like that? Will the incorporated fork
> be able to move ahead fast enough to not simply
> fall apart and atrophy? I don't know. But those
> are the issues that come to my mind.
> 
> Regards,
>        Ole
> 
> 
> 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