Hello Gordon, > > <<<- Sealand claims souvereignity but has no commercial code that would > <<<establish rules of conduct, taxation, contract law, etc. > > Taxation? Contract law? Rules of conduct? Where would they hold the trial? ... The reason why they should have them is to make clear that they can NOT decide ad hoc to raise taxes (in the sense of implementing tax rules and starting to charge). Also, having a commercial code, contract law and rules of conduct does not necesarily imply that there has to be a judiciary aside from the absolute monarch or his appointees. Meaning, HavenCo and Sealnd are two different entities. One is a company/venture/business/service provider, the other is a country. If the country has no rules, then the service business can do as it pleases (poach customers, spam visitors, etc) and while you can vote with your wallet, it would put your clients at a disadvantage if after a few months you moved off Sealand again. Having rules will protect your clients against HavenCo's actions if those actions breach the rules. You could then complan to the monarch who could either make a ruling or appoint someone to do. An actual trial if you want to go that far, could take place online.
Now, I'm not saying that HavenCo is crook nor that Sealand is in any way questionable. What I am saying is that there is no foundation to conduct business on and HavenCo's terms of service (as well as your own) are hence useless as they lack a basis in law, because there is no law. That, in turn means, everyone using any service related to Sealand has a gentleman's agreement at best. Common law does not apply, because there are no precedents. > > <<<- Sealand's ruler is an absolute monarch without checks and balances. > So? The word here is continuity. I accept that both the monarch and heir apparent/prince regent appear to be honouarble people of good character, but what about the next in line? Indeed, who IS the next in line? What if heaven forbid something happens to the Bates' family and suddenly Sealand is without a ruler. There are no rules that would take care of things. Indeed, HavenCo's share holders could proclaim soverignity over Sealand in the absence of anyone contesting. So again, you have a gentleman's agreement and don't know if the next in line is a gentleman. If a business venture takes a longer term view of things, which anyone who ever made a business plan worth the cost of the paper it's printed on would do, then Sealand and by extension HavenCo looks like a partner you can deal with (or don't) on a month-to-month basis. That in turn is not something I usually do - and I believe you to be more solid as well. Even the move of Katz Global to Panama suggestes foresight and careful planning. > It is suprising to me that the people who should be the most outspoken about > > government are the first to complain when there is none, ... I always considered governments as a good thing - when enjoyed in small quantities. I like the protection of the rule of law, I enjoy the benefits of a criminal code and enforcement agencies that let me sleep at night (or posting to this list) knowing that a teenage step daughter will be safe when walking home from a party three blocks away, with a friend at 4 am. In fact, I'm even a monarchist at heart (those of you who know me, know why ;o). What I dislike are double standards, absence of standards and being at the mercy of a government that doesn't follow it's own rules, makes rules as they go, OR has none. In other words, I like the Malaysian model of government and dislike the American one. > > ok fine. So you would rather pay lower fees to have your servers in the USA > guaranteeing your customers are at the mercy of the > Government? Certainly! There is only so much interference from the US government, as long as everybody plays by the rules. When we do get an inquiry, as happens from time to time, mainly by the USPS, we answer their questions as good as we must. Let's face it, most gov questions relate to potential fraud and it is a good thing that fraudsters are having a hard time. On the other hand, we host dozens of highly controversial sites and the gov only once had some questions about one of them, some of which we answered and others which we didn't because we failed to see where the answer was related to anything illegal. It appears that this kind of attitude is acceptable to everyone involved. We host political sites and religious sites because we believe not only in freedom of speech, but also that it is vital for an interested public to gather information from other - even controversial - sources, in order to form an informed opinion. At the same time, we host anything else that does not conflict with our TOS and policies. But I honestly believe that simple fact that we are straight forward in our approach is why we have a 'mutually beneficial relationship' with the US gov. We try to ensure that sites we host are above the board and shut down sites when we find out that they are breaking any laws, as I'm sure you do as well. This means of course, that even if a client would host in Panama or indeed in Sealand with you, but was stealing investors' money inan investment scam, then you would shut him down - just as we would. If someone has a legal investment concept that pays high returns, then he can as well host that in the US - or Europe, for that matter. > > What happens when a clients competition tries to get rid of them by > complaining to some agency and they start a false investigation? That is then when having a spotless reputation with investigating bodies becomes a relevant bargaining chip. Of course, there is always the issue that we don't know the real identity of some of our clients - especially those who live overseas and those who pay with e-gold. We can't really ensure that someone who uses the privacy hosting options and pays with e-gold is who he says he is. But, at the same time, there is no law that would force the client to disclose his identity to us unless it is required for fulfilment of the contract, which in most cases it isn't. Clients sign up, agree not to use the account for illegal purposes and pay by e-gold. If we get a complaint about a site operator, then we become active, but until that time, they have a constitutional right to privacy. Which by the way is something they have neither in Sealand nor in Panama ;o) > Most hosting companies roll over so easy and they are so afraid of the > spotlight. Shame on them! I agree on both points. But that only means that they are stupid. I wouldn't mind a bit of spotlight for cyberica.net... > > They have rules... > No spam, no kiddie porn, and they will turn you in to interpol if you are a > terrorist. oh... and pay your bills or you get shut off. > And that is where the trouble starts: What defines a terrorist? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, one man's soldier is another man's invading terrorist. Who decides, where is the rule, what is the definition? Oh, and what about fraud? Hate crimes? Credit card number auctions? I'm sure they won't host them either - but it's not in the rules. Without rules and guidelines, you don't know which of your customers would cross a line... Two mentions of bill paying. Hmmm. What have you heard? We are infamous for paying months ahead (makes the accounting easier), own most of the servers we operate, outright and are involved in the ownership of one of the data centers we use. So, your source seems to be unreliable at best ;o) > > Do you enjoy these protections under the Autrailian Commonwealth? > (This is where you are right?) Nope on both counts. We are an American company after all (amongst other things) So, American law applies to our hosting division. But the administration is elsewhere, holding structures are somewhere else, and I am somewhere completely different altogether. One might say we picked, mixed and matched, the best jurisdiction for each individual division and the most fitting physical location for everything else. The beauty of the net, really. Currently we have eleven formal companies and business entities in five jurisdictions, not counting reps and agents. > > <<<If the conspirators fail, then they will first > <<<go after the service providers, next after the ventures based on or using > <<<Sealand and finally make things difficult for everyone remotely related to > <<<Sealand - such as your customers hosting there. > > I disagree with this statement and think it is 100% false. How could they even find > out who the customers are? They could read this list... set up a hosting account with you and trace the server location to Sealand... > For something like this to > happen it has to be an act of war. Not at all. Tracing customers of HavenCo is not exactly difficult. Harrassing them in their location of business is then the logical next step. No war required. Not even a helicopter ride to Sealand. > > <<<Now, while sticking to Sealand might earn you a medal for bravery (now, > <<<there is an idea), it is not necessarily a wise business choice. > > Again I disagree, although I always appreciate your opinion. What is the nature of a > wise business choice? Is it one where you earn > a profit on your investment legally? Well then... Not exactly. I would consider a wise business choice a decission that ensures best possible service to your clients while generating a profit for yourself. Meaning, the risk of getting client's accounts involved in a turf war or governmental pi**ing contest is in my opinion not a wise choice because the possible gains for client and you alike do not warrant the risks and efforts taken. But, I am known to be pragmatic about these things and try to find the most pratical solution, such as registering a company and maintining accounts and an office address in the US (which some people by now equate with making a pact with the devil). Of course, the marketing company registered elsewhere. Either way, I really like the whole Sealand concept. I find it gutsy and romantic and the stuff to make movies about. But I try to not base a business on what feels good, but on what is practical, efficient and gives me (and hence our clients) the best possible facilities and services for the lowest possible price with the least possible hassles. Indeed, I believe you are doing the same thing. Maybe you just didn't look at the potential trouble Sealand might bring for your clients under the aspect of effort and risk related to benefit and cost. Now, if Sealand started issuing passports and establishing consulates and trade missions, then that could make all the difference... (if they had some more clear cut rules and regulations, that is). Cheers, Robert. budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net budget & privacy domain registrations + mail http://www.u2planet.com/cfdomaintrust.html --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
