Re: [opennic-discuss] [opinion] Corporate strategies yields corporate results

That's why I put the post out there in the first place, Jonah.  Maybe I
AM the outlier.  I personally aspire to be more, but the reality is
that I do this BECAUSE I CAN, not because I want to be ICANN.  If
openNIC is moving in a corporate direction to compete against ICANN, I
say good on that group of people, and I'm out.  And I am happy to run
my own DNS and peer openNIC.

I'm still here because I get value out of it and I expect that I will
get and give for some time.  But when the group just becomes another
ICANN, strictly for the purpose of taking on ICANN, I certainly don't
have the time nor energy for that.

No idea what anyone else' thoughts are on this topic, but I suppose
that they have spoken, as you point out that a vote was taken to move
forward with eventually forming a 501(c), so that suggests your point
of view is the dominant viewpoint of those who voted.

Cheers,

Kevin

On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 22:11 -0500, Jonah Aragon wrote:
> Perhaps I’m in the minority then? Although picking from extremely
> outdated material that doesn’t seem to reflect the main project page
> (does anyone have an opennic.glue archive?) hardly seems like the
> best evidence. But is this all anyone aspires to be, some
> experimental discussion group with no clear focus or motives besides
> running slightly different name servers than everybody else?
> 
> There’s no reason for anybody to trust OpenNIC or our servers.
> There’s no motivation to keep our services running. There’s nothing
> preventing takeovers or attacks on our DNS infrastructure by bad
> actors. OpenNIC is, as far as I know, the only alternative to ICANN
> with any significant following, why don’t we treat ourselves as
> seriously as that deserves?
> 
> Jonah
> 
> > 
> > On Jul 25, 2018, at 9:09 PM, kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Why openNIC?
> > 
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20080217222644/http://www.opennicprojec
> > t.or
> > g:80/en/overview.html
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 20:01 -0500, Jonah Aragon 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 <[email protected]
> > > > om>
> > > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > > 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 [email protected]
> > > > icpr
> > > > oject.org
> > > --------
> > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]
> > > proj
> > > ect.org
> > 
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]
> > oject.org
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]
> ect.org



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]