Re: [atlarge-discuss] Short-term goals

[NameCritic <chris1@telnor.net>]

My comments are below each of your paragraphs here.


----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Short-term goals


> On 14:26 28/09/02, NameCritic said:
> >Since the bylaws define our purpose and the structure under which we will
> >operate, this should be the #1 priority for us or for the panel. Is there
> >already a panel or committee working on it?
>
> Not necessarily a #1 priority. I think #1 priority is to live together and
> see how it works, so not to commit yet to final structures. This is the
> first time ever that a significant number of people not knowing each
other,
> from every part of the earth, from every cultures, attempt to create some
> organization together on a peer to peer basis, in a still
top-own/bottom-up
> outdated confrontation environment.

That's part of forming any type of organization. The people involved need to
get along and all be working toward the same goals, that of the
organization, setting aside personal agendas.

>
> I feel the first thing to do is to avoid to speak of specific forms,
> country, etc. for the global organization. What we can certainly do - and
> this is what we did with the Panel - is to agree upon a common Secretariat
> structure: we live in a real world.

And in the real world you must have a mission statement and bylaws in order
to operate effectively. With a mission statement or statement of purpose
everyone, including potential donors know exactly what we are all about.
With bylaws the membership and potential donors know that we have a
structured way of operating. Rules are always needed in any structure.

>
> We have several attempted experiences to take advantage from. IDNO tried
> and though about Tonga or other small non committing States. TLDA tried
and
> went the US way, what turned to be very slow and a poor current situation.
> USG tried another way with ICANN and California. Not a success. What I see
> is that there are four stable experiences: (a) NGO and International
> status, not our cup of tea right now (b) European associations (Belgium,
> France, Luxembourg) for light non-profit (c) Switzerland, some
> Central-America and off-shore Trusts for businesses and large non-profit
> (d) canonic law of the Roman Church, not our cup of tea but a lof of
> experience in supported diversity, globality and duration...a keyworkd I
> always remembered, they have no "chair" (only the Pope): they have
> "moderators", what someone translated very well at the DNSO WG-Review as
> "stewart" - showing that Scotts are level with Romans in terms of
> organizing networks.

>
> IMHO this incorporation is not a big deal: I have incorporated several
> organizations in France I manage quite alone under the control of friendly
> coopted BoDs (world@wide foundation, SIAT created in 1978 which supported
> most of the public international network documentations and international
> users at a time). The real thing is a name, a banking account, a financial
> control (ie at least three Treasurers and a public reporting) and a BoD
> motion system. Our organization is like a political party: we will never -
> and we do not want - prevent anyone from doing what he wants. Any
> organization with a "Chair" will fail. What we need is a catalysis, we may
> accept Moderators/Stewarts. This is to be provided by the Panel. All the
> Panel needs is a Secretariat.

IMHO, fundraising for a foreign corporation or association is more difficult
than one in the US. I don't have a personal preference of where it would be
filed, but the fact is most users are in the US. Most potential donors are
in the US. They are set up to approve donations to charities and
organizations that have the specific 501C-3 status and according to their
own set policies cannot donate funds to any other type of organization. Send
a funding request to any US corporation and they will request your 501C-3
information before they can donate any money. With a 501C-3 we may also
qualify for grants that again specifically state that you must be a 501C-3.
That's what ICANN did and for a good reason.

I'm not saying it cannot be done in a foriegn country, just saying we need
to qualify for funding from anyone and 501C-3 is the most accepted standard.
To have one, we have to have articles of incorporation and bylaws and a BoD.
Different states have different rules as to how the BoD is structured but
all require the Articles and bylaws.

I am not familiar with foreign corporations, just looking at the future and
see the future needs money. In order to get it we need to be structured in
some way that is acceptable to the largest group of potential donors and
grant givers.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de