Wittenberg

General => Wittenberg => Topic started by: Eðo Grischun on October 14, 2020, 05:01:02 PM

Title: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 14, 2020, 05:01:02 PM
LEX.D.2.10.4. Talossa.com and Kingdomoftalossa.net are the property of the government and shall be run by the ministry of STUFF.


Upon my appointment as Minister of STUFF, and following discussions held with the Seneschal, I opened a dialogue with King John to discuss the Kingdoms' web domain assets.  The domain kingdomoftalossa.net is hosted on a webhost account in the name of the king, and not in the name of the Talossan Web Registrant, who is an officer of the Ministry of STUFF, and who should currently be the named agent on all web domains owned and operated by the government.  To achieve full compliance with statutory law, the domain kingdomoftalossa.net needs to be transferred from the King's old webhost account to the webhost account held in trust by the Talossan Web Registrant, who is currently Istefan Perþonest.  This account is currently also where Talossa.com and all related subdomains is hosted.

The Seneschal actually has access to the old webhost account.  Legally, the Seneschal could initiate the domain transfer unilaterally without even consulting with the King.  However, we felt that a having a conversation with the King and have him work with us would have been the better action to take.  And, so, I began my aforementioned dialogue with the King.

El Lexhatx only explicitly mentions the domains of talossa.com and kingdomoftalossa.net, but in conversation with the King it was discovered that other domain names are also held in his name.  These are kingdomoftalossa.org, kingdomoftalossa.com, talossa.net and talossan.com.  The king agreed that all these domains should be transferred to government control.

About a month has passed since I last heard from the King on this matter.  Several communications with the King have since gone unanswered.  Today, the King has named a Regent to act in his name.  I would ask the Regent to help me complete the required tasks, however, I fear that the Regent will be unable to do so as he probably has not been given access to the webhost accounts in question.

The King has left me in the difficult position of being in legal limbo on this.  The domains controlled by the government must be in the name of the officer of my Ministry, but I am unable to achieve compliance with the law until the domain transfer is complete.  This leads me to making the decision that I shall press ahead without further communication with or action of the King.

Therefore, I, as Minister of STUFF, hereby make the executive decision to initiate the domain transfer procedure and request that the Seneschal accesses the account of the old webhost and forwards to my office the domain transfer epp code (aka domain transfer auth code, aka domain transfer authorisation code).



Tagging:
@Miestră Schivă, UrN  - Seneschal
@King John
@Sir Alexandreu Davinescu - Regent
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 05:37:44 PM
Just so I understand, you are saying that there are several domains owned by the king, and he expressed openness to transferring those over to the government, but has not yet gone so far as to agree to the transfer or initiate it from his end. And absent this agreement, for which you have been waiting almost one month, you have decided to unilaterally transfer them over through the access that the Seneschal has? Or is this unilateral transfer limited just to what the law names: kot.net and talossa.com?

Either way, it's probably pretty improper for the government to decide that they should take possession of someone else's property and then act to seize it unilaterally in this way. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to bring suit. I don't believe there is any provision in the law that allows seizure of property by the government in this way, even if they think that another provision entitles them to it.  The Fourth Covenant specifically protects against this, actually... a judge must issue a warrant which specifically spells out the property that may be seized.

I am not passing judgment on the merits of such a claim or the underlying goals or anything like that, and I'm certainly not impugning your intentions.  Just want to keep everything above board and avoid any problematic precedents.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 14, 2020, 05:59:25 PM
Not 'absent an agreement'; an agreement was made.  Post agreement, though, the King has not taken action or even communicated with us. However, regardless of that agreement, the law I quoted above has been the law for...I don't actually know how long exactly without checking, but a very long time.

This is not a government "seizure".  The King is holding a government asset that should have been transferred a long time ago.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 06:09:02 PM
Not 'absent an agreement'; an agreement was made.  Post agreement, though, the King has not taken action or even communicated with us. However, regardless of that agreement, the law I quoted above has been the law for...I don't actually know how long exactly without checking, but a very long time.

This is not a government "seizure".  The King is holding a government asset that should have been transferred a long time ago.
I'm not arguing that the text above is not the law, and I'm not arguing the merits of the case, and I'm not even arguing whether or not there is some sort of agreement.  I agree on the first, don't want to touch on the second, and have no idea about the third.  But what you're suggesting is indeed a government seizure of property.  It is your belief that the government is entitled to some of His Majesty's property, either by law or by agreement, and you are directing the seizure of that property.  That is quite literally what is happening.  I'm not arguing the merits of that seizure and I'm not saying you're doing anything intentionally unethical.  But you can't seize private property without a warrant.  It's against the Fourth Covenant.  And saying to a government official, "Hey, go take that guy's property since he hasn't given it to us yet," is definitely a seizure!

Seriously not trying to be difficult here, but I strongly suggest that the easiest and least acrimonious way to resolve this is just to get a very simple injunction, if you're sure one is warranted (so to speak)!  If you declare that you won't, then I just have to go file for an emergency motion to stop you, and that seems really aggressive and unnecessary... it would be a lot more hassle and a lot more work and a lot more bother for everyone.

I can't just say that this is okay, I don't think, sorry... it seems like that would be a pretty egregious violation of trust.  So just go present your case to a judge, please!
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 14, 2020, 06:27:19 PM
I'm not sure I agree that the the domain is the King's private property.  It used to be, yes, but a few years ago the law took the domain out of the status of being the King's private property.

Anyway, myself and the Seneschal shall discuss this with the Attorney General before taking any further action.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 06:33:58 PM
I don't want to argue the merits of the case here, but you are saying that you believe that the law entitles the Government to something currently in someone else's possession.  That's pretty clearly a case for a judge, not your own discretion, right?

Thank you for pausing to discuss this, and please let me know your decision once it's made.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 14, 2020, 07:09:06 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 07:16:13 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 14, 2020, 07:27:35 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 07:40:43 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role
Thank you for your perspective. In this particular instance I think you are not quite on target, since discussions of public principle should happen in public. Back channels certainly exist, and I could have just sent a private message. But doing things in public can also be pretty important at times.

That said, I think that's you are very right that I will need to be very cognizant of my new role going forward. I will strive my best to keep my head on a swivel when it comes to the dignity of the crown, no matter how dimly it is reflected in my own person for the short time I expect to occupy this role. It definitely is not in my nature to be a shrinking violet about points of principle, and I I know the king is aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that I should accommodate myself to the task at hand. Let me say again how much I appreciate your kind and thoughtful words on the matter, which were lodged with so much courtesy and thoughtfulness.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on October 14, 2020, 07:56:21 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role
Thank you for your perspective. In this particular instance I think you are not quite on target, since discussions of public principle should happen in public. Back channels certainly exist, and I could have just sent a private message. But doing things in public can also be pretty important at times.

That said, I think that's you are very right that I will need to be very cognizant of my new role going forward. I will strive my best to keep my head on a swivel when it comes to the dignity of the crown, no matter how dimly it is reflected in my own person for the short time I expect to occupy this role. It definitely is not in my nature to be a shrinking violet about points of principle, and I I know the king is aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that I should accommodate myself to the task at hand. Let me say again how much I appreciate your kind and thoughtful words on the matter, which were lodged with so much courtesy and thoughtfulness.

I am grateful that you appreciate what i have said, and the intent i have put behind it, and that you have taken what i have said onboard.

I would disagree with your first statment, as yes for Citizens voicing such concerns is perfectly within out rights, As Regent, acting on behalf of the monarch at all times, to join in public discourse, even on public principle, (which the points you have made in general make sence i just dont feel that they apply in the circumstances, but thats beside the point) is putting the monarchy on "paper" as record of a position, no matter how subtle, which a monarchy invading on matters of public principle, is in itself casting a spotlight on the monarchy, whether intended or not, whether the powers exist or not, the Monarchy must remain above the frays of public discourse to remail truly impartial and to dutifully be able to fulfilll the roles and duties, without bringing the monarchy into any possible contreversy. As these are a danger to the insitutions which are central to the function of talossa. but if you continue to hold the position that you feel that this is fine discourse in your new role, then i think it would be best to agree to disagree on the subject and draw a line under the discusion as this discusion has somewhat derailed this thread, which i apologise for, i just felt this was the most appropiate way to bring this up, without it seeming like an attack on youself, which would not have been my intent.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 14, 2020, 08:38:41 PM
Whilst i do not object to the disagrements in this thread, though i do sire with the Minister on this, that is beside the point, As @Sir Alexandreu Davinescu is now acting as regent,I do feel that if the Regent has such concerns that they be voiced to the ministers and Government privatley and not openly discuss in Public, as this draws the Crown to one side of an issue which reflects badly on the Monarchy, so i would counsel the new Regent, to limit thei public disagreements and statements to minimum  to none. And that i implore that the Regent acts with impartiality and dignity in the role, and try to not deliberatley or not, antagonise or put a view out their, as they are not only representing themselves at this point, but the Crown. Which i think the regent needs to keep this in mind a things continue.

This is only my personal feeling on this, but i do think it is importaint to be stated.

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment and receive it in the spirit with which it is intended. Let me be clear and say that I am not acting as of yet in any official capacity on behalf of the regency. I am very carefully and explicitly also saying that I'm not taking a position on the merits of the case. But I think it is actually quite important as a matter of principle to establish that the government may not seize property without a warrant. I think this principle should be openly acknowledged and proudly defended.

I would, in fact, be making an identical argument and taking identical steps even if I was not the regent. I trust that my reputation in our country is sufficient to back me up on this: If I think an important principle is under threat, I will loudly defend it.

I am absolutely certain that the Government means well. I can't talk about the merits of the case without prejudicing any future proceedings, but I think I can at least say that I am not hostile to the idea! This is simply a matter of principle about which reasonable people might disagree, without acrimony or anger, and I hope it will continue in that way.

Whilst i appreciate that this might not have been intended to be stated in capacity of regent, you are still regent, and since the King has appointed you to te position, it is hard to distingish what you say as a citizen, to that as regent, as until the regency ends, they are one in the same, so whilst i dont disagree that you have the right to voice these concerns with the Government, i would recommend more ususal backchannels which im sure exist, so even the apperance of taking a side is avoided.

Whilst you are regent, speculating and disagreeing publicly with the Govenment whether intended or not, or even playing devils advocate, might threaten the constituional boundries between the Governnment and the Crown, which it is now your responcibilty to try to uphold and keep intact to the best of your ability as regent. It is not an easy role and im sure much of it will go against your nature, but in order to serve faithfully as regent, you must always remember that no matter your intent, all of your posts will carry the assumption whether you state it or not, will be as regent, it just comes with the job, hence my voicing of my concerns in this matter to help you i your new role
Thank you for your perspective. In this particular instance I think you are not quite on target, since discussions of public principle should happen in public. Back channels certainly exist, and I could have just sent a private message. But doing things in public can also be pretty important at times.

That said, I think that's you are very right that I will need to be very cognizant of my new role going forward. I will strive my best to keep my head on a swivel when it comes to the dignity of the crown, no matter how dimly it is reflected in my own person for the short time I expect to occupy this role. It definitely is not in my nature to be a shrinking violet about points of principle, and I I know the king is aware of that, but that doesn't change the fact that I should accommodate myself to the task at hand. Let me say again how much I appreciate your kind and thoughtful words on the matter, which were lodged with so much courtesy and thoughtfulness.

I am grateful that you appreciate what i have said, and the intent i have put behind it, and that you have taken what i have said onboard.

I would disagree with your first statment, as yes for Citizens voicing such concerns is perfectly within out rights, As Regent, acting on behalf of the monarch at all times, to join in public discourse, even on public principle, (which the points you have made in general make sence i just dont feel that they apply in the circumstances, but thats beside the point) is putting the monarchy on "paper" as record of a position, no matter how subtle, which a monarchy invading on matters of public principle, is in itself casting a spotlight on the monarchy, whether intended or not, whether the powers exist or not, the Monarchy must remain above the frays of public discourse to remail truly impartial and to dutifully be able to fulfilll the roles and duties, without bringing the monarchy into any possible contreversy. As these are a danger to the insitutions which are central to the function of talossa. but if you continue to hold the position that you feel that this is fine discourse in your new role, then i think it would be best to agree to disagree on the subject and draw a line under the discusion as this discusion has somewhat derailed this thread, which i apologise for, i just felt this was the most appropiate way to bring this up, without it seeming like an attack on youself, which would not have been my intent.

I'm happy to thank you once more and close the discussion here, as you like. I think that the monarchy should not shy from right confrontation when the confrontation is right, and I believe the king agrees. But I will definitely take your cautions onboard.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 15, 2020, 12:20:02 AM
I just want to add to this for the sake of onlookers wondering about the status of the law surrounding this.

50RZ31 (The Lannister Act and Sense of the Ziu) was the Act that amended the section of El Lex I quoted before.  That Bill was passed into law in 2017 by the MRPT.  The kingdomoftalossa domain stopped being the King's private property at that point and became property of the government under Talossan law.  It should have been transferred at that point, which was roughly three years ago.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 15, 2020, 01:51:18 AM
I should also add to this that Governments since the passing of the above act have been reimbursing the Fugitive King for his hosting fees. The King has been therefore paid by the State to maintain these domain names. They are IMHO property held in trust for the Kingdom, and we would like to repossess them, please thank you.

Still awaiting the Attorney-General's take on the legalities thereof.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: GV on October 15, 2020, 10:57:35 AM
Just so I understand, you are saying that there are several domains owned by the king, and he expressed openness to transferring those over to the government, but has not yet gone so far as to agree to the transfer or initiate it from his end. And absent this agreement, for which you have been waiting almost one month, you have decided to unilaterally transfer them over through the access that the Seneschal has? Or is this unilateral transfer limited just to what the law names: kot.net and talossa.com?

Either way, it's probably pretty improper for the government to decide that they should take possession of someone else's property and then act to seize it unilaterally in this way. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to bring suit. I don't believe there is any provision in the law that allows seizure of property by the government in this way, even if they think that another provision entitles them to it.  The Fourth Covenant specifically protects against this, actually... a judge must issue a warrant which specifically spells out the property that may be seized.

I am not passing judgment on the merits of such a claim or the underlying goals or anything like that, and I'm certainly not impugning your intentions.  Just want to keep everything above board and avoid any problematic precedents.

Why has the King been incommunicado these past few months? 

How long will this regency last?

Does John have a pressing issue outside of his life in Talossa keeping him from activity?  What that issue might be is none of our business, but what we need to know is "Yes, I've got something going on.  Can't talk about it here." or not.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 15, 2020, 11:05:02 AM
His Majesty got back to me and says that he has no problem with the Government using its access to transfer over the domain names.  I get the impression that he was not aware there was a problem with it at this point -- maybe just waiting until he got back would have been the best course?
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 15, 2020, 11:06:18 AM
Just so I understand, you are saying that there are several domains owned by the king, and he expressed openness to transferring those over to the government, but has not yet gone so far as to agree to the transfer or initiate it from his end. And absent this agreement, for which you have been waiting almost one month, you have decided to unilaterally transfer them over through the access that the Seneschal has? Or is this unilateral transfer limited just to what the law names: kot.net and talossa.com?

Either way, it's probably pretty improper for the government to decide that they should take possession of someone else's property and then act to seize it unilaterally in this way. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to bring suit. I don't believe there is any provision in the law that allows seizure of property by the government in this way, even if they think that another provision entitles them to it.  The Fourth Covenant specifically protects against this, actually... a judge must issue a warrant which specifically spells out the property that may be seized.

I am not passing judgment on the merits of such a claim or the underlying goals or anything like that, and I'm certainly not impugning your intentions.  Just want to keep everything above board and avoid any problematic precedents.

Why has the King been incommunicado these past few months? 

How long will this regency last?

Does John have a pressing issue outside of his life in Talossa keeping him from activity?  What that issue might be is none of our business, but what we need to know is "Yes, I've got something going on.  Can't talk about it here." or not.

His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I have been appointed to assist with some of the duties that are overdue, since His Majesty recognized that some things needed doing.  The regency's term is undefined right now, but it will end when His Majesty returns and no longer requires my assistance.  I do not anticipate that it will last overlong.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: GV on October 15, 2020, 12:12:10 PM
Just so I understand, you are saying that there are several domains owned by the king, and he expressed openness to transferring those over to the government, but has not yet gone so far as to agree to the transfer or initiate it from his end. And absent this agreement, for which you have been waiting almost one month, you have decided to unilaterally transfer them over through the access that the Seneschal has? Or is this unilateral transfer limited just to what the law names: kot.net and talossa.com?

Either way, it's probably pretty improper for the government to decide that they should take possession of someone else's property and then act to seize it unilaterally in this way. I would suggest that it would be more appropriate to bring suit. I don't believe there is any provision in the law that allows seizure of property by the government in this way, even if they think that another provision entitles them to it.  The Fourth Covenant specifically protects against this, actually... a judge must issue a warrant which specifically spells out the property that may be seized.

I am not passing judgment on the merits of such a claim or the underlying goals or anything like that, and I'm certainly not impugning your intentions.  Just want to keep everything above board and avoid any problematic precedents.

Why has the King been incommunicado these past few months? 

How long will this regency last?

Does John have a pressing issue outside of his life in Talossa keeping him from activity?  What that issue might be is none of our business, but what we need to know is "Yes, I've got something going on.  Can't talk about it here." or not.

His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

Very good!  I missed that particular post, alas.

Quote
I have been appointed to assist with some of the duties that are overdue, since His Majesty recognized that some things needed doing.  The regency's term is undefined right now, but it will end when His Majesty returns and no longer requires my assistance.  I do not anticipate that it will last overlong.

Good to know on all counts.  Thank you!
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 15, 2020, 12:32:09 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 15, 2020, 01:14:05 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Well, he appointed a regent because he wanted some assistance with things building up, so presumably my appointment itself is your answer :)  Please let me know if I can help with anything else.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 15, 2020, 02:15:47 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Well, he appointed a regent because he wanted some assistance with things building up, so presumably my appointment itself is your answer :)  Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

No I'm sorry but that really isn't the answer. Letting things build up is one thing, not responding to numerous emails and never acknowledging legitimate issues bothers me. I am glad he appointed a regent to do the things he didn't really want to do or whatever the reason is, I just wish he hadn't gone MIA for over 70 days when it would have taken five minutes to pop on to Witt and let us all know he was ok but just really busy.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 15, 2020, 02:27:13 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Well, he appointed a regent because he wanted some assistance with things building up, so presumably my appointment itself is your answer :)  Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

No I'm sorry but that really isn't the answer. Letting things build up is one thing, not responding to numerous emails and never acknowledging legitimate issues bothers me. I am glad he appointed a regent to do the things he didn't really want to do or whatever the reason is, I just wish he hadn't gone MIA for over 70 days when it would have taken five minutes to pop on to Witt and let us all know he was ok but just really busy.
Well, it's kind of a crazy time for a lot of people. There's a global pandemic and almost everyone is struggling to accommodate themselves to a drastically different world, and some people have health issues or their loved ones do. I can't speak to the specifics of His Majesty's situation, but the guy stepped up to do the job 15 years ago in a time of crisis and has found it mostly a thankless task. Please, let's give him the same grace that we would give anyone in the same situation. You are annoyed that he missed your emails or didn't have a chance to reply to them, and I respect that and apologize for that. But he has acted to help fix things and move things forward, so let's join together and do that. What are the issues still outstanding that need attention?
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 15, 2020, 03:06:08 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Well, he appointed a regent because he wanted some assistance with things building up, so presumably my appointment itself is your answer :)  Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

No I'm sorry but that really isn't the answer. Letting things build up is one thing, not responding to numerous emails and never acknowledging legitimate issues bothers me. I am glad he appointed a regent to do the things he didn't really want to do or whatever the reason is, I just wish he hadn't gone MIA for over 70 days when it would have taken five minutes to pop on to Witt and let us all know he was ok but just really busy.
Well, it's kind of a crazy time for a lot of people. There's a global pandemic and almost everyone is struggling to accommodate themselves to a drastically different world, and some people have health issues or their loved ones do. I can't speak to the specifics of His Majesty's situation, but the guy stepped up to do the job 15 years ago in a time of crisis and has found it mostly a thankless task. Please, let's give him the same grace that we would give anyone in the same situation. You are annoyed that he missed your emails or didn't have a chance to reply to them, and I respect that and apologize for that. But he has acted to help fix things and move things forward, so let's join together and do that. What are the issues still outstanding that need attention?

Trust me S:reu Regent I know all about the global pandemic. I've spent the past 7-8 months teaching remotely and hardly ever leaving my home. I'm not disrespecting the king or misunderstanding any possible situations. I also intimately understand thankless jobs so that is not an area I raise either. I simply wanted a reply to emails. I didn't send them because I wanted to bother or trouble the king. I sent them in the hopes he could help with a few things that needed to be done or addressed.

For example, Maricopa has a Cunstaval who hasn't been seen or heard from in over a year (last post on OldWitt was September 2019). Our cunstaval doesn't even have an account on this version of Witt. I asked the king to please replace him with an active citizen and preferably someone from Maricopa. Other provinces face the same problem. I checked, the Regent has all the powers of the king. You could do this. The king could have done this. Some provinces cannot even operate without one. That is what is outstanding and needs to be done.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 15, 2020, 03:19:57 PM
Indeed. The Regent does have all the powers that the Head of State has. If the Regent doesn't feel like exercising the duties of the Monarchy then one needs to ask what is the point in the King appointing a Regent?  Just more layers of non-feasance if you ask me.

All the excuses made above for the King's own non-feasance don't cut it.  We have all been experiencing similar events.  If the Monarch is truly unable to carry out the duties of his office then it is simply time for the House of Lupul to abdicate.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Eðo Grischun on October 15, 2020, 03:24:51 PM
His Majesty got back to me and says that he has no problem with the Government using its access to transfer over the domain names.  I get the impression that he was not aware there was a problem with it at this point -- maybe just waiting until he got back would have been the best course?

Thank you for helping get this sorted.


The King being unaware of the issue is a problem in itself, by the way.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 15, 2020, 03:25:19 PM
His Majesty has not been incommunicado -- this very matter was discussed with the Government three and a half weeks ago.  As the Seneschal has confirmed, His Majesty has generally been quick to reply when she consults him.

I would like to know if King John has not been incommunicado, why he never responded to multiple emails from his own Secretary of State. That is why I started that other thread, out of sheer frustration that the king doesn't respond to members of the Royal Household. Perhaps you could ask him S:reu Regent since it seems you have ready access to the king.
Well, he appointed a regent because he wanted some assistance with things building up, so presumably my appointment itself is your answer :)  Please let me know if I can help with anything else.

No I'm sorry but that really isn't the answer. Letting things build up is one thing, not responding to numerous emails and never acknowledging legitimate issues bothers me. I am glad he appointed a regent to do the things he didn't really want to do or whatever the reason is, I just wish he hadn't gone MIA for over 70 days when it would have taken five minutes to pop on to Witt and let us all know he was ok but just really busy.
Well, it's kind of a crazy time for a lot of people. There's a global pandemic and almost everyone is struggling to accommodate themselves to a drastically different world, and some people have health issues or their loved ones do. I can't speak to the specifics of His Majesty's situation, but the guy stepped up to do the job 15 years ago in a time of crisis and has found it mostly a thankless task. Please, let's give him the same grace that we would give anyone in the same situation. You are annoyed that he missed your emails or didn't have a chance to reply to them, and I respect that and apologize for that. But he has acted to help fix things and move things forward, so let's join together and do that. What are the issues still outstanding that need attention?

Trust me S:reu Regent I know all about the global pandemic. I've spent the past 7-8 months teaching remotely and hardly ever leaving my home. I'm not disrespecting the king or misunderstanding any possible situations. I also intimately understand thankless jobs so that is not an area I raise either. I simply wanted a reply to emails. I didn't send them because I wanted to bother or trouble the king. I sent them in the hopes he could help with a few things that needed to be done or addressed.

For example, Maricopa has a Cunstaval who hasn't been seen or heard from in over a year (last post on OldWitt was September 2019). Our cunstaval doesn't even have an account on this version of Witt. I asked the king to please replace him with an active citizen and preferably someone from Maricopa. Other provinces face the same problem. I checked, the Regent has all the powers of the king. You could do this. The king could have done this. Some provinces cannot even operate without one. That is what is outstanding and needs to be done.
After spending all day teaching over zoom like I do, I imagine you must be pretty frustrated and worn out, and I feel the same way about it. It is difficult to manage and helping the children learn is an incredibly arduous task under these circumstances. all the thousand things that we're accustomed to do, from subtly checking on a child's welfare to giving them the word of encouragement that they might need in that moment - it's all harder. Let us all do our best to extend grace as we deal with new problems and new challenges. His Majesty has acted to try to remedy the problems with the things that needed to be done, and I will do my level best to assist with them.

Yes, I may exercise all the powers of the king. I believe you have already alerted me to the situation in Maricopa, and I assure you that I will investigate the situation and act as best I may to help relieve the issue. Consistently active provincial officers are a problem as old as the provinces themselves, but making appointments so entirely within the purview of the crown is something that I am trying to take seriously and thoughtfully. I promise you I will do my best with it.
Title: Re: [STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 15, 2020, 03:34:07 PM
Thank you S:reu Regent. Just to be clear though, I think giving someone the better part of 3 months is giving a lot of grace but I'll drop it for now in the hopes you will do what you say.