On 7 February 2010 23:13, Mike Schinkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2. Regardless of whether it is a traditional or modern concept, what about > the rest of us that are not in the USA? There are so many restrictions for > such organisations that would be great for americans (or just canadians if > it were a canadian co-op, or just british if in england, etc) but useless > for the rest of us. > > What restrictions do you refer to? > > Oh, I meant that it include things like the way some co-ops here are created they can only have members from Canada and not individuals or corporations from outside of Canada (and other countries may do it the same), or if it were an association and there were dues/membership fees to pay then taxation laws might restrict some countries from allowing those dues/fees to be written off if the association was a "national" association in a nation that was not ours. But Jerome also said - and I don't think that it was meant to be malicious in any way - that: >From what I've seen, we have two related proposals: 1. National org/network/co-op 2. National conference And if we're going to form something, we should get into the habit of calling it international, both in discussions between ourselves to acknoweldge that we are in many different countries as well as when looking at the logistics of a legal entity because the latter will make a structural difference. So, if something were to exist, we could only participate if it was > structured as an international association. > > > I'm not sure I understand the specific distinction between an international > association and one that is not. If it states it's mission to be > international, is that not enough? > > Yes, maybe, but depending on where the association is set up, the laws of that country might state that if the association were to include international individuals or corporations as members then the association must be structured in a particular way. I ran into this when consulting with a client who formed a co-op and they wanted to include international members but couldn't because they structured their co-op in a particular way when they incorporated, so we had to make a change to their corporate filings to restructure their co-op. It was quite a hassle. > 3. This would also cost money. If the cost of a conference is an issue, > then additional dues, fees, etc would also be an issue, even if they went > exclusively to conference costs. > > > What specific expenses do you envision prior to collecting sponsorships? > Legal fees? Can probably get that handled pro-bono. Other? > > Hrm, I can't find it now, but I thought someone had voiced some concerns about the cost of a separate conference, and so it doesn't matter if the money is going directly to conference costs or to conference costs by way of dues, it is still money leaving our pockets. However, to answer your question, if funds were going directly to the conference, it would be airfare, accommodations, food, ground travel, wifi time to blog about the new body scanners at the airport, etc. If the funds were going to dues/fees, then it could be just as expensive. And of course, back to taxation, conference fees would likely be treated differently by your accountant than membership fees. I do, however, like the idea of some sort of association, if it were > international, and I do love the idea of the association (or co-op, or > whatever) being the organisation that runs the conference. > > > :) > > > BTW, I'm just brainstorming and might be way off base on some of these > thoughts and ideas. > > No worries. I re-read my first e-mail and realised that I wasn't clear enough. Can I chalk that up to posting at the end of a long day? r. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en.
