[wg-c] non/for profit

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On the for-profit/non-profit issue...

  Roeland Meyer:
  "..there is no practicable distinction between a for-profit registry
  and a non-profit registry."

This leaves us wondering why Mssrs Meyer, Ambler, Mueller, Rutkowski,
Walsh, and others are concerned -- if there were in fact no distinction 
between non and for profit entities they should not care, since they 
could exploit consumers just as easily running as a non-profit.

But in fact, of course, there is a big distinction.

Prof Mueller takes an extended excursion down this absurd
"non-distinction" road:

  Milton Mueller:
  "You have just accepted the fact that non-profits are just as
  likely--and as able--to exploit consumers as for-profits.  Ergo,
  they should not be treated any differently."

If Jon "accepted that fact" then Jon was gravely mistaken, because it
isn't a fact at all.  The fact is that non-profits are indeed less
likely -- and less able -- to exploit consumers -- vastly less likely
and less able.  No institution is perfect, and indeed there have
been, as Milton noted, some well-publicized cases of abuse.  But the
fact that profiteering in the context of a NON profit is so
well-publicized is evidence of its rarity, not of it's ubiquity. 

On the other hand, profiteering in the case of FOR profit companies
is rather ho-hum news -- in fact, one could say it is precisely the
expected mode of behavior.

  Mueller:
  "In short, I am attacking the relevance of the whole distinction. 
  It is based on a naive confusion between the legal category of
  "non-profit" and the notion of "working selflessly for the public
  interest." There is no reliable correlation between these two
  categories."

On the contrary -- there is indeed a highly reliable correlation.  It
is not a *perfect* correlation, but there is a much higher
correlation between "non-profit" and "working selflessly for the
public interest" than there is between "for-profit" and "working
selflessly for the public interest".  In fact, there is a high
*positive* correlation in the former case, and a high *negative*
correlation in the latter -- for profit companies, almost by definition, 
are not in it for "selfless" reasons. 

  Mueller:
  "Indeed, the belief that you solve the registry problem
  by licensing only non-profits is just a way of verbally defining
  the problem out of existence."

I think it is clear who is trying to "verbally define problems 
out of existence" :-)

More to the point, nobody believes that "non-profit" is a panacea
that will "solve" the problem.  It is a measure that can "reduce" or
"alleviate" the problem, but it can't "solve" it.

I must agree, however, that the term "non-profit" is frequently used
in a sloppy manner in email debates.  This is not because people are
"naive".  It is because the term "non-profit" is used as a convenient
shorthand for a number of desired characteristics.  Other terms are
used as well: "non-proprietary", "public-trust", and so on.  

All of these terms are admittedly sloppy shorthand keywords for
underlying points of view.  The discussion seldom gets to the core
principles underlying this sloppy shorthand -- but that would be a
good subject for another, longer message. 


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain