RE: [wg-c] non/for profit

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 7:09 AM
>
> 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.

You miss the point. The statement is actually about effectiveness. Making a
registry a non-profit doesn't even qualify as a placebo, as far as what I
think you want is concerned. Let's get down to first principles. Tell us
what you REALLY want and let's see if we can build it in explicitly. But,
let quit trying for sloppy short-cuts because we won't buy into them.

Let's see your principles and not from the perspective of arguing for
non-profits either. Let them stand on their own. Who knows, you might have a
lot more support (in the for-profit camp) than you think you do. We may be
able to craft them into a policy-set that is independent of whether the
registry is non-profit or not. However, beating the non-profit drum isn't
convincing anyone that isn't already convinced. The alternative is impasse.

[As CEO of MHSC, I've already refused funding based on some of these
concerns. My funding report was given in the ORSC list, in Mar99. The MHSC
BoD lives by first-principles that go beyond simple profiteering.]

>   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.

Both of you miss the point that corrolations, like single-instance proofs,
don't prove anything either. They certainly do not prove cause and effect
relationships. What about plain old human cussedness, as a factor?

>   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.

How about defining what sort of ecclesiastic principles you want the
registry to espouse and embody? Let's be less sloppy and more precise. I am
aware of many a good "for-profit" that are MUCH more humane than many
non-profits. We can trade examples all day and it won't accomplish much,
other than raising the noise-level around here (and we've had entirely
enough of that).