Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 20, 2017 13:23:00 GMT -6
Whereas His Majesty, King John has paid the cost of Talossan webhosting for more than a decade, and
Whereas Talossa owes its continued existence to these websites
Whereas the Ziu is immensely grateful to His Majesty for this major contribution to our nation, and
Whereas Talossa should not be completely dependent on a single person for its finances, and
Whereas it is about time we pay our fair share as a community, and
Whereas the legal status of official Talosan sites within Talossa might be unclear, and
Whereas the official sites of the Kingdom are and should be run by the democratically elected government, and
Whereas public spending does require some standard of accountability, and
Whereas A Lannister always pays his debts, now
Therefore the following sub-subsections shall be added to El Lexhatx D 2.10.:
"2.10.4. Talossa.com and Kingdomoftalossa.net are the property of the government and shall be run by the ministry of STUFF.
2.10.5 The Talossan Web Registrant is the officer within the Ministry of STUFF who acts as the domain name registrant of Talossa.com. The Talossan Web Registrant can be appointed and dismissed by the Minister of STUFF.
2.10.6 The Talossan Web Registrant shall inform the government of any payments made towards domain registration and hosting of Talossa.com, Kingdomoftalossa.net and other government run websites.
2.10.7 The Ministry of STUFF shall reimburse the Talossan Web Registrant for any payments towards domain registration and hosting of Talossa.com and other government run websites no later than during the Third Clark of the next Cosa term provided the Ministry has been properly informed.",
Furthermore the following sub-subsection shall be added to El Lexhatx D 2.1.:
"2.1.6. The Budget as described in the above D 2.1.5. shall always include funds for re-imbursing the Talossan Web Registrant and others for any payments towards domain registration and hosting ot Talossa.com and other government run websites made during the previous Cosa term that were not re-imbursed during the previous Cosa term, provided that the government or the previous government has been informed about these payments properly and on time.",
In addition to the above the sub-subsections following the new sub-subsection D 2.1.6 are renumbered accordingly,
Furthermore it is the sense of the Ziu that its strong advice to the Minister of Stuff is to appoint King John as Talossan Web Registrant following the passage of this bill.
Uréu q’estadra så: Glüc da Dhi (MC, MRPT - Minister of STUFF)
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 20, 2017 13:24:13 GMT -6
There are still some questions within the Ministry of STUFF about the current situation regarding the webhosting. I have been discussing this with His Majesty. I hope to be able to update the Ziu on this before the bill is clarked.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jul 21, 2017 14:15:09 GMT -6
Since we do NOT want any of our domain names stolen or misappropriated, I would suggest:
1) that the REGISTRANT be "The Kingdom Of Talossa", with the contact details of Person A (described later), and 2) that the ADMIN be "The Minister of STUFF" with the contact details of Person B.
Persons A and B should NOT (ever!) be either the Monarch (though I can be argued out of that) or the Minister of STUFF in person, That is, we rely upon the trusted individuals A and B to pass back information to the appropriate people within the Kingdom, and to ensure that renewals are correctly handled. It is, IMHO, important that the domain names are owned by NO individual, but by the Kingdom itself. It is also, IMHO, important that the people overseeing the safety of registration and ownership should never, ever have any political power whatsoever as long as they are REGISTRANT or ADMIN of the domains. Both A and B should share all passwords / identification information etc. as required by the registration authority, so that (in emergency) each can act in the other's absence, and that information should also be placed in (possibly informal) escrow. If either (or both) of A or B become corrupt, then we still have the *ownership* of the domains within the Kingdom itself.
To recap: the REGISTRANT should be "The Kingdom of Talossa", and not an individual person.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 27, 2017 14:50:21 GMT -6
The only changes to the current situation this bill makes is that a) it declares the sites are property of the Kingdom under Talossan law and b) we pay whoever pays for our sites. Of course that still leaves a lot of room for discussion on the points you raised. I don't think I agree with your point about the Monarch not being the person who acts as registrant, especially considering he has reliably done so for more than a decade. What is the conflict of interest you see here?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 27, 2017 15:09:19 GMT -6
Anyway, a quick update with regards to the financial consequences. I still hope to post a more detailed update of the situation and our plans soon, but I can't guarantee this will be before this bill is clarked.
If the rates don't change this bill requires us to pay $15.17 yearly for Talossa.com domain renewal $29.23 per quarter for Talossa.com hosting * $18.17 yearly for Kingdomoftalossa.net domain renewal $95.88 yearly for Kingfomotalossa.net hosting which would be $246.14 yearly. That is on average (assuming 9 month cycles) $184.61 per budget.
However, it appears Talossa.com hosting fees are not actually being paid at the moment (more on this later), so that might change the numbers.
Additionally His Majesty is paying for domain renewal of 4 more domains (one of which is talossan.com, which the current government considers the responsibility of the CuG). The goverment might decide to pay for one of these sites in order to have an extra domain just to be sure. That would obviously increase the costs of this bill.
I further believe that after passage of this bill it would be wise to consider if there aren't any hosting alternatives available that are cheaper than what we are paying now.
Either way, we have been living off major donations from His Majesty for years now. If we want to carry the burden more evenly that means one way or another other citizens will have to contribute more to our nations finances (for example by buying coins/stamps or through party fees, but maybe also through direct donations).
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jul 27, 2017 16:08:15 GMT -6
Anyway, a quick update with regards to the financial consequences. I still hope to post a more detailed update of the situation and our plans soon, but I can't guarantee this will be before this bill is clarked. If the rates don't change this bill requires us to pay $15.17 yearly for Talossa.com domain renewal $29.23 per quarter for Talossa.com hosting * $18.17 yearly for Kingdomoftalossa.net domain renewal $95.88 yearly for Kingfomotalossa.net hosting which would be $246.14 yearly. That is on average (assuming 9 month cycles) $184.61 per budget. However, it appears Talossa.com hosting fees are not actually being paid at the moment (more on this later), so that might change the numbers. Additionally His Majesty is paying for domain renewal of 4 more domains (one of which is talossan.com, which the current government considers the responsibility of the CuG). The goverment might decide to pay for one of these sites in order to have an extra domain just to be sure. That would obviously increase the costs of this bill. I further believe that after passage of this bill it would be wise to consider if there aren't any hosting alternatives available that are cheaper than what we are paying now. Either way, we have been living off major donations from His Majesty for years now. If we want to carry the burden more evenly that means one way or another other citizens will have to contribute more to our nations finances (for example by buying coins/stamps or through party fees, but maybe also through direct donations). FYI, I am paying for Talossa.org currently and have been doing so for some years.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2017 22:08:44 GMT -6
On the face of it this is probably a reasonable measure and good idea. A few thoughts though:
Re: The registrant being "Kingdom of Talossa" vs a named person. I'm nearly certain we can't do that - at least, for now. Fairly new legislation (extra-Talossan) requires that web hosting services verify the identity of website registrants. I've had to go through this process a couple of times recently. It's fairly easy to deal with - all I had to do was upload some form of ID. That's not to say the registrant must be a named person (ie: John Smith), it can be an entity, such as a corporation, etc. However in these circumstances the web host would require a certificate of incorporation or some such. I'm almost certain we never got round to incorporating the Kingdom as a legal entity (corporation, charity, non-profit). I could be wrong on that and if I am then the problem doesn't exist. We would need to verify, first, if we have certification/ID in the name of "The Kingdom of Talossa" before registering the domains under that name. If we don't have this then we would first need to incorporate The Kingdom under extra-Talossan law AND THEN register the domains under that entity name. Otherwise, we would automatically have our domains suspended until we could complete the domain registrant verification process.
It should also be noted that if we have to use a named person then we would need to go through the document/ID verification process each time the named registrant changes - so its probably easiest and best not to use a Minister or some other office that will change from time to time.
Further, if we go with a named person that changes from time to time ... well, we've lost access to things in the past when that person is unreachable (Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2017 22:16:23 GMT -6
Re: hosting costs.
Might I suggest signing up to a a multiple or unlimited domains account where all domains are capped under a single monthly cost? In the past I used such a service for business where I hosted my main dot com plus 4 or 5 hub sites. The cost was around £20 per month for unlimited hosting of unlimited domains. Extraneous to that cost was simply the registration purchase of each domain (which can be done annually, bi-annually, 5-annually, etc).
It kept costs together in one manageable package and also helped in managing the domains as they could all be dealt with within one single admin panel.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 27, 2017 22:21:24 GMT -6
Actually, I think I'm now remembering that Istefan Perthonest incorporated the Kingdom as a non-profit (or similar) a few years ago in order to complete the PayPal setup (or bank account setup). I'm fuzzy on the details and I'm not sure if it was just a conversation that didn't go anywhere or if we actually did end up incorporated. Needs to be looked into.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 4, 2017 16:06:41 GMT -6
I have some news. It turns out that in addition to the yearly cost for hosting, the King has also been paying a monthly fee of $2.99 to godaddy for something called "Dedicated Hosting IP" relating to kingdomoftalossa.net. Most likely the government will not be reimbursing this for the 49th and 50th Cosa terms, but this does add to the future cost of this bill. I had really hoped to find this out before the voting started on this bill. My apologies for the delay.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 6, 2017 6:50:36 GMT -6
I cannot reply in the Senate thread directly, because I'm not a senator, so I'm posting here again. I must strongly urge Senator Eðo Grischun to reconsider his vote on 50RZ31. I'll have to admit I was a bit surprised as I did not interpret above posts as opposition to the bill. I do sort of see your point though. I will not go as far to say the registrant should be a permanent name. If we are, as a nation committed to paying for our webhosting expenses, I think it would be irresponsible to do so with at least a minimum of oversight, which to me includes the possibility to switch registrants if we feel this is necessary. That said, doing so on a regular basis would be unwise. However, I think many of the reasons it would be unwise are also reasons why a switch in registrant probably won't happen very often. It's not like the Minister of STUFF can just pull a lever and the registrant changes. I'm no expert, but as far as I know it is actually a lot of work and requires both the old and new registrant to approve and idenitfy. It would be much easier for any Minister of STUFF to stick with the current registrant, just like its much easier not to change the Burgermeister or SoS every term, even though. So there is a certain disconnect between how dynamic this law makes it seem and how dynamic the reality is. Additionally I have faith in whoever is Minister of STUFF to realise that giving a citizen who has not been a reliable and active citizen for a long period of time control of our websites is not a good idea and in future Seneschals and Zius to step in should a Minister of STUFF think otherwise. Maybe you still disagree. Thats fine, but here's the thing. With the status of the websites clear it's perfectly possible to amend this bill to for example require ziu approval for changing the web registrant, but currently, the status of the websites is unclear. Is the government already the owner? Maybe. Well, in that case we should already be able to require the registrant to change, no? Except there is no structure in place, the government would be able do what it wants. Maybe the government has no right to do so, but in that case, what grounds for reimbursement is there? There is no law, no accountability, nothing. Honestly if this law fails I don't know if the government could continue with its plans for reimbursement. I'm not saying we cant, Im saying I dont know. Is that a better situation to be in for the Ziu? Not knowing? Note btw that the draft of this bill has been shared with His Majesty. He had no objections. In addition, I believe the status of the websites would be confirmed an additional time by the signature of the current web registrant on this bill. So I would plead with you, please compare the situation with this bill to a situation without anything. This bill provides us with something to hang on to, something to work with. Please vote Per.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 6, 2017 8:26:22 GMT -6
I cannot reply in the Senate thread directly, because I'm not a senator, so I'm posting here again. I must strongly urge Senator Eðo Grischun to reconsider his vote on 50RZ31. I posted several times in relation to this issue, but nobody cared to discuss my points. In absence of discussion, debate, information and correction I have no choice but to err on the side of caution. Above all this domain registrant talk there is the issue of who owns the websites and domain names. I believe the main web infrastructure of our Kingdom should be the property of the Crown. It's not for the government to have, it's for the government to manage. The government changes and rebuilds itself in line with the political flavour of the year. The Crown does not. The domain registrant should be, and always be, The King. I'll discuss accountability and oversight later. I point you to the wording of your proposed law: "The Talossan Web Registrant can be appointed and dismissed by the Minister of STUFF." That is pretty much the legislative equivalent of pulling a lever. Sure, the registrant in the extra-Talossan sense won't instantly change by pulling that lever, but inside the Ministry it can. We could then have a scenario where a Minister of Stuff pulls that lever and we find ourselves in a situation where the registrant within Talossa is a different named person than the extra-talossan legal named person. I'm not entirely certain of how a changeover works, but yes, it would require ID verification as I pointed out before. Then why bother writing what you wrote into the law? Why bother to create this 'disconnect'? If it's easier to have a registrant that can't be changed on whim then why not just have a registrant that can't be changed on whim? Also, while it may be easier not to change our SoS regularly, we are still able to change the SoS without it affecting things outside of Talossa. The same can't be said for the Burgermeister, but his position only affects bank accounts and is viewed and treated much like a treasurer for these purposes. We don't lose our bank accounts when a mix up happens, but with the web registrant stuff we risk website downtime and domain suspensions if not handled properly. I have no such faith. We fall victim to people going away and not coming back all the time. What seems like a great idea one day often turns out to be a disaster a year or so down the line. How many times have we been locked out of Facebook or Twitter accounts? There was a time we had this awesome web dude that was highly active and he set up website stuff on his own servers. All of a sudden he stopped being active. We couldn't reach him. We lost access to the entire Wiki as a result. How many Witt versions have been lost over the years due to similar problems? MPFs original database would have been lost forever if he hadn't of had a change in heart and returned to the Kingdom. Sorry, I just don't have that same faith that you do. I don't see why not. You simply write a bill that transfers money from the Kingdom coffers to the King without all the website ownership and domain registrant stuff. Also, you do know reimbursement is not essential as a long term plan? The person paying for a web service need not be the domain registrant. I have websites where the payee details are different from who the registrant is. It's entirely possible to have the websites remain the property of the Crown, have John Wooley be the domain registrant per extra-Talossan law, and have the government pay the bill from whatever account with oversight you like. The king doesn't need to be out of pocket every time a renewal occurs just because he's the listed owner and registrant. Sorry, it's still a non vote.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 6, 2017 8:40:43 GMT -6
I must have misinterpreted your comments then. I (wrongly) assumed that by this "so its probably easiest and best not to use a Minister or some other office that will change from time to time." you meant a person like a minister with a fixed term, who is usually replaced every term, not someone like the Bürgermeister who can be replaced, but usually isn't.
But why should the government pay and why should various ministers do so much work on a site that's essentially someones private domain?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 6, 2017 9:55:45 GMT -6
I must have misinterpreted your comments then. I (wrongly) assumed that by this "so its probably easiest and best not to use a Minister or some other office that will change from time to time." you meant a person like a minister with a fixed term, who is usually replaced every term, not someone like the Bürgermeister who can be replaced, but usually isn't. Semantics, I suppose. The government pays for nothing as the government doesn't have it's own money. The government manages the Treasury which is paid into by us all (well, not all as we don't have widespread taxes, but the money still comes from the people). Let me counter you question with one of my own: Why do governments pass budgets and do so much work on anything Talossan then? The government is about service to the nation and the Crown, no? I don't own anything Talossan. I don't wish to own anything Talossan. I still like serving in whatever way I can. In a regular old Monarchy, like the UK, the Crown "owns" a heck of a lot of stuff. The Queen is not allowed to manage most of it nor can she take profit from most of it (surpluses go to the Treasury, managed by the government). It's a complicated web of systems, but essentially the government in a monarchy manages and "pays for" most of the Crown's stuff that the public has access to. Now, Talossa doesn't 'have' parks, forests, highways, estates, castles, palaces, art collections, etc. However, the most important thing we have is web infrastructure. For many, rightly or wrongly, Talossa is the web. Our websites, in a metaphorical (and, I suppose, Peculiarist) sense, are our highways, public places, important buildings, et al. The websites in effect form the most important section of what would be the Talossan Crown Estate. So, in a similar fashion to other Monarchies, the King owns the websites, but should not personally profit from them nor incur personal cost because of them. He should allow public access to them and the government should manage them. However, that is all a separate argument and superfluous to the Bill in question, although the philosophy above explains the drive behind my decision. I'm voting against it because of the Ministry of Stuff involvement over domain registrants; the domain registrant should either be a permanent name (in the name of John Wooley) or permanent entity (in the name of the Kingdom overall).
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 6, 2017 12:49:23 GMT -6
Well the government does pay, but its true the government itself is being funded by people. Not taxpayers, cause we dont't have taxes, but political parties, citizens willing to donate and even non citizens who are free to buy coins and stamps. And we as a Ziu represent the citizens. And my point is that it would be irresponsible to let the government pay for something over which we have no control and which is essentially someone's private domain.
The government serves the Crown yes, to the extent the Crown serves the people.
You talk about the crown, but that's not really what it's about here right? If it were the property of the crown you'd think it at least be subject to some laws. It would also mean that if at one point there is a different King that King would automatically become the registrant. But that's not really what you are suggesting here, and it's certainly not what would be achieved by voting against this bill.
In some Monarchies the Crown does indeed own part of a nations infrastructure, though this is certainly not always the case. And this is a bit more important than a park or a castle. Like you said in many ways Talossa is the web. You think John Woolley should own Talossa? (My guess is that he doesn't think so.)
For the record I'm fine with John Woolley being the registrant, and I would suggest he remains the registrant, but I don't neccesarily think the requirements for a monarch or a web registrant are the same. Either way I absolutely do think the government or the Ziu, or some institution directly accountable to the people should be involved.
It's incredibly generous of King John to let us use his personal domain for the benefit of Talossa and we should be very grateful to him, but the idea that the people or the government or the Ziu should now just write a blank cheque for his private domain and have no say in how this is used and simply rely on his generosity is just not an idea I can support.
|
|