[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Apr 2 12:22:08 EDT 2008

> I agree with the addition of language to mandate that community  
> networks
> be run in an open fashion by not-for-profit community-driven entities.
> Because I know of many such organizations which are not
> fully-incorporated 501(c)3's in their own right, I don't know that it
> should be more specific than that, but I definitely wouldn't want the
> policy to be exploited.

OK... This thread has lead me to deeply regret using 501(c)3 as an  
EXAMPLE of ONE TYPE of acceptable organization because everyone
seems to have gotten caught up in the idea of what is/isn't appropriate
about that as a criteria.

Please, let's drop the 501(c)3 debate.  I apologize for attempting to  
use it
as an example of an acceptable type of not-for-profit vs. the many other
IRS categories for not-for-profit status which I would consider NOT  
for this policy.

Let's focus instead on the meat of what should or should not qualify  
this policy proposal and move on.  501(c)3 is a rathole and I apologize
for introducing it.

In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific enough that it  
not provide openings to be exploited by PACs, random religious,  
or other groups organized in the interest of furthering an agenda in  
of some subgroup of society.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list