|
| in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment | Ián Txaglh | December 04, 2007 - 05:45 | | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 13:41 |
|
Parent message | | in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment | Ián Txaglh | December 04, 2007 - 05:45 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#701), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 13:41. Viewed 418 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29) |
> after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),
Firstly, I am intrigued to hear that apparently important decisions like this are being made without my input, and would like it if the Seneschál would confirm whether I am still in the Government or not.
Secondly, this proposal amounts to the re-privatisation of Wittenberg. No dice. I insist that our webspace is owned by the President of the Republic directly as the elected representative of the Talossan people, and administered by people directly responsible to the President.
> the CEO must be non-politician,
Well, this is incredibly inconsistent of the President, who is trying to abolish "non-political" roles in favour of everyone being allowed to do every job (eg bringing the Speaker into the Government).
> we need to nationalise it "perfectly",
By creating a private corporation to run it?!?
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 04, 2007 - 15:46 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 13:41 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#702), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 15:46. Viewed 416 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | >
> > after discussion with deet, we agreed on founding of "talossan telecom" (TT),
>
> Firstly, I am intrigued to hear that apparently important decisions like this are being made without my input, and would like it if the Seneschál would confirm whether I am still in the Government or not.
You are, but maybe I'm out, eh? :-P I know you hate this particular smiley, and that's why I'm posting it here. There.
> Secondly, this proposal amounts to the re-privatisation of Wittenberg. No dice. I insist that our webspace is owned by the President of the Republic directly as the elected representative of the Talossan people, and administered by people directly responsible to the President.
>
> > the CEO must be non-politician,
>
> Well, this is incredibly inconsistent of the President, who is trying to abolish "non-political" roles in favour of everyone being allowed to do every job (eg bringing the Speaker into the Government).
>
> > we need to nationalise it "perfectly",
>
> By creating a private corporation to run it?!?
To bring down this glider of rhetorical brilliance: Please tell us, how a President, who will have to quit his office at least every two years, could practially pass the ownership of webspace and domain names to a successor without causing an interrupt in the service. Please take into account, that said ownership would include being the billing contact, and furthermore, that occasionally this would include a transfer of macronational contract across the borders of continents.
So, practically, we can vest the political control of the ownership in the hands of whomsoever we want, but in the real world we need to sign contracts with a provider of webspace and with a registrar who provides us with domain names, and in countries like Germany a real-world liability is coming along with being the one whose name is in the WHOIS database - this isn't something to toy with.
That is, said abovementioned "private corporation under Talossan law" would have to be some sort of an interface between hobby horse activities and a variety of international laws that none of us can ignore. So, again, if you can tell us how a variety of Talossan Presidents can be our legal representatives to the real world of web hosting contracts for years, and how they will find the best contract for us, without an annually scheduled interrupt of the service, tell us about all the technical and legal details. NOW.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | December 04, 2007 - 17:20 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 04, 2007 - 15:46 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#708), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 17:20. Viewed 450 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > You are, but maybe I'm out, eh? :-P I know you hate this particular smiley, and that's why I'm posting it here. There.
I have erased several comments to this statement. Feel free to imagine what I wrote and take it to heart.
> Please tell us, how a President, who will have to quit his office at least every two years, could practially pass the ownership of webspace and domain names to a successor without causing an interrupt in the service. Please take into account, that said ownership would include being the billing contact, and furthermore, that occasionally this would include a transfer of macronational contract across the borders of continents.
What am I missing here? I am currently the billing contact for three domains. Transferral of the domains is peformed by filling out a web form, typing a password and clicking Send. What's different here? I assume you're thinking of something that hasn't occurred to me.
--
Servéu |
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:21 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 04, 2007 - 17:20 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#711), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 04:21. Viewed 407 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > You are, but maybe I'm out, eh? :-P I know you hate this particular smiley, and that's why I'm posting it here. There.
>
> I have erased several comments to this statement. Feel free to imagine what I wrote and take it to heart.
>
> > Please tell us, how a President, who will have to quit his office at least every two years, could practially pass the ownership of webspace and domain names to a successor without causing an interrupt in the service. Please take into account, that said ownership would include being the billing contact, and furthermore, that occasionally this would include a transfer of macronational contract across the borders of continents.
>
> What am I missing here? I am currently the billing contact for three domains. Transferral of the domains is peformed by filling out a web form, typing a password and clicking Send. What's different here? I assume you're thinking of something that hasn't occurred to me.
I can only repeat what I wrote elsewhere already: The last time we had a legal provision that made the President owner of our main means of communication, the provision was not effective in reality. The President had no command over his ownership. Under some local national laws he would have been in serious troubles, if our websites would have been used for the distribution of illegal material, such as child porn or warez and he would have had no means to block said distribution immediately, on demand of an Attorney-General or some such.
Under the rules of DeNic, the top level registrar for .de domains, there would have been at least two clauses according to which our ownership would have become null and void under the circumstances as they were during Grubi's presidency: a) he had no practical means to administrate the site that was registered under his name; b) (neglectable in our case, but anyway) he was not a resident of the area in which .de domains are distributed, thus not obliged to follow German law, thus not entitled to own a .de domain.
Certainly there may be different rules for other top level domains, but my point is that our laws will have to comply to the rules that are set by the registrars of said top level domains. We'll have to make a reality check before we pass any laws of domain ownerships, that is the core message of what I am saying.
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:54 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:21 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#713), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 04:54. Viewed 426 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21) | > We'll have to make a reality check before we pass any laws of domain ownerships, that is the core message of what I am saying.
That core message is very sound. Of course we must. It was the ready-made conclusions "We cannot do this, we do not want this, this is impossible" that made me bewildered.
I administrate an .org domain. .org and .com and .net domains are not local but international. There are no problems or costs involved in transferring this domain. So if we manage to get our accounts to a good registrar, like networksolutions.com or any other similar company, let's see what their rules are. If macronational law doesn't agree with what we want to do, of course we have to adjust.
--
Servéu |
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | December 05, 2007 - 14:06 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | December 05, 2007 - 04:54 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#716), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], December 05, 2007 - 14:06. Viewed 421 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29) | > > We'll have to make a reality check before we pass any laws of domain ownerships, that is the core message of what I am saying.
>
> That core message is very sound. Of course we must. It was the ready-made conclusions "We cannot do this, we do not want this, this is impossible" that made me bewildered.
>
> I administrate an .org domain. .org and .com and .net domains are not local but international. There are no problems or costs involved in transferring this domain. So if we manage to get our accounts to a good registrar, like networksolutions.com or any other similar company, let's see what their rules are. If macronational law doesn't agree with what we want to do, of course we have to adjust.
If this whole sorry tale of drama has been Dieter's way of saying "there must be a way of making sure the President of the Republic has effective day-to-day control over the National Webspace", then of course he's correct. I am happy to insert a new clause in the Webspace Nationalisation Act along the lines of "the Minister of Technology shall make sure that each responsible official named under this act has the tools for actual day-to-day administration of the responsibilities assigned to them". That's all we need to put in the law. No need to make up bogus corporations. And if our preferred provider doesn't like our preferred set-up of responsibility, we can edit the law. No hassle, no gripe and no problem.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 15:56 |
|
Parent message | | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 04, 2007 - 15:46 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#703), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 15:56. Viewed 419 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29) | > You are, but maybe I'm out, eh? :-P I know you hate this particular smiley, and that's why I'm posting it here. There.
The Vercáriâ School of Inspirational Leadership, ladies and gentlemen.
> Please tell us, how a President, who will have to quit his office at least every two years, could practially pass the ownership of webspace and domain names to a successor without causing an interrupt in the service. Please take into account, that said ownership would include being the billing contact, and furthermore, that occasionally this would include a transfer of macronational contract across the borders of continents.
Other organisations somehow manage to pass on formal property when they re-elect their leadership, without having to close everything down. Let's put it this way. I am part of a political organisation which does not have a legal existence. The assets of the organisation are legally held by a company whose Board of Directors happen to be simultaneously the political leadership of the organisation. That seems a totally straightforward way to do it.
I think the Nova Romani have a system where they have a private, non-profit company to hold their assets, of whom the CEO and President are their Consuls and the Board of Directors is their Senate. Why can't we do that? Why could we not set up a non-profit, in whichever macronational jurisdiction is most appropriate, of which the President would always be the President of the Republic and the Board of Directors would be the Cabinet? And the non-profit would be the legal owners of the webspace?
In other words: the contracting would be done in the name of a non-profit organisation incorporated under macronational law in an appropriate territory, but whose legal leadership would coincidentally be the leadership of the Talossan Republic. I assume the actual technical work of contracting would be done by the Minister of Technology, as is mandated in current legislation.
Miestrâ Schivâ
Minister of Immigration
Editor, Qator Itrìns
Founder-President, ZRT - Party of National Unity
Chief High Language Geek of the Talossan Republic
TALOSSA, C’È ASÚNTS SERIÖSEN!
|
|
| | D. N. Vercáriâ | December 04, 2007 - 16:11 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 15:56 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#705), posted by D. N. Vercáriâ, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 16:11. Viewed 404 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51) | > > You are, but maybe I'm out, eh? :-P I know you hate this particular smiley, and that's why I'm posting it here. There.
>
> The Vercáriâ School of Inspirational Leadership, ladies and gentlemen.
>
> > Please tell us, how a President, who will have to quit his office at least every two years, could practially pass the ownership of webspace and domain names to a successor without causing an interrupt in the service. Please take into account, that said ownership would include being the billing contact, and furthermore, that occasionally this would include a transfer of macronational contract across the borders of continents.
>
> Other organisations somehow manage to pass on formal property when they re-elect their leadership, without having to close everything down. Let's put it this way. I am part of a political organisation which does not have a legal existence. The assets of the organisation are legally held by a company whose Board of Directors happen to be simultaneously the political leadership of the organisation. That seems a totally straightforward way to do it.
>
> I think the Nova Romani have a system where they have a private, non-profit company to hold their assets, of whom the CEO and President are their Consuls and the Board of Directors is their Senate. Why can't we do that? Why could we not set up a non-profit, in whichever macronational jurisdiction is most appropriate, of which the President would always be the President of the Republic and the Board of Directors would be the Cabinet? And the non-profit would be the legal owners of the webspace?
>
> In other words: the contracting would be done in the name of a non-profit organisation incorporated under macronational law in an appropriate territory, but whose legal leadership would coincidentally be the leadership of the Talossan Republic. I assume the actual technical work of contracting would be done by the Minister of Technology, as is mandated in current legislation.
But this non-profit incorporatation thang is exactly the issue that has to be fleshed out before we can pass any laws. Last time we vested the legal ownership of our main means of communication into the hands of the President, it had just been a move of wishful thinking. So, we need to investigate the legal conditions in the world that surrounds our tiny Republic, before we can pass any law. Nothing more has been said.
The question, in comparison to the Nova Romani et al. is not "why can't we do that". The question is "how can we do that".
_________________
- Dieter
A long history is fine, a long future is better.
|
|
| | Ep Inxheneu Crovâ | December 04, 2007 - 16:04 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 15:56 |
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment(#704), posted by Ep Inxheneu Crovâ, [IP Hidden], December 04, 2007 - 16:04. Viewed 458 times. |
|
Ep Inxheneu Crovâ
Group: admins
(1303 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 03:56) | > In other words: the contracting would be done in the name of a non-profit organisation incorporated under macronational law in an appropriate territory, but whose legal leadership would coincidentally be the leadership of the Talossan Republic. I assume the actual technical work of contracting would be done by the Minister of Technology, as is mandated in current legislation.
>
This could potentially cost hundreds of dollars, and I know because I spent quite a bit of time looking into it. If we had a proper tax on every citizen, we could reasonably hope to cover both the establishment costs and the ongoing administration involved, let alone the cost. Or someone could pay for it out of his/her own , but then we're back to solo runs.
Why exactly is it a problem to just say we are the Republic of Talossa, unincorporated non-profit assocition like your average social club or residents association, and keep individual names out of it? Under the law od Wisconsin that would put us under limited liability and allow us to own real property.
We seem to be going in circles on this. We have the money and the laws to get this done, however we want. Lets not reinvent the wheel on it.
D
================================
De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace et la patrie sera sauvée
Georges Danton
|
|
|
|
