|
| RE: in regard to proposal: The Webspace Nationalisation Amendment | President Anglatzarâ | December 04, 2007 - 17:20 | | 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)
Citizen #23:
Ián Anglatzarâ | > > 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)
Citizen #23:
Ián Anglatzarâ | > 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)
Citizen #23:
Ián Anglatzarâ | > > 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!
|
|
|
|
