[STUFF] Ministerial Decision re: domain names

[Eðo Grischun]

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

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Eðo Grischun]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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!

[Eðo Grischun]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

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

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[Eðo Grischun]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

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.

[GV]

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.