|
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment | la garçâ malpadert | December 04, 2007 - 15:56 | | 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 405 times. |
|
D. N. Vercáriâ
Group: citizens
(4498 posts total)
(last post: March 15, 2008 - 16:51)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > > 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 459 times. |
|
Ep Inxheneu Crovâ
Group: admins
(1303 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 03:56)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > 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
|
|
|
|
