|
This is the
reason that I think the financial problem can be circumvented
legally ... What I am proposing is to investigate setting up a sales relationship for Americans for Dean to offer discounted hosting to potential nodes in order to guarantee that the nodes comply with a standard set of technical requirements (making standard or automated setup a realistic possibility) ... a contractual relationship with an established hosting service would, if anything, be considered REVENUE, not an expense, for this group, because it would return server space for the centralized services free in return for the sales representation... BUT past the sales pitch, the financial relationship would pass to the individual nodes to maintain with the host vendor ... the individual hosting costs for each node would fall well under the $250 limit for an individual donor ... Howard2 Howard Vicini computer graphics, prepress, animation & web design San Francisco Dean url www.bayarea4dean.com personal url www.vicini.net email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM howardvicini AIM IM howardvicini voice 415-522-1555 ----- Original Message ----- From: "zachary rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "jim sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jon Lebkowsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Joshua Koenig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:51 PM Subject: RE: [hackers] node hosting > I am no lawyer, but here is a pretty concise answer: > > -Any money spent on an ISP serving a node for the campaign is legally > considered a campaign contribution. If the cost incurrs goes over $250 > then there is some paperwork required. There is a $2000 cap on campaign > contributions from one person. > > -If PAC money is used to pay for hosting then there cannot be much > interaction legally with the Dean for American headquarters. You can > communicate but not plan / organize / control. > > -Any for profit or non profit group offering node hosting service cannot > be partisan or connected in any way to a campaign. > > I will have access to DFA HQ lawyers at some point soon, and have been > talking with Berkman center lawyers about this issues / our options. > When I know more I will share all i got. > > Hope this helps - any questions? > > -Zack > > On 22 Jul 2003, jim sloan wrote: > > > I've been following this for most of today and I am concerned that this > > bifurcation is taking too much energy. What I think needs to happen is > > that the legal issues need to be spelled out for anyone that would want > > to host a site (regardless of candidate). This information can be used > > by any interested party to host whatever they want. > > > > I don't think that hosting is a problem for the h4d project. But if we > > have the information that relates to the above then we can help the > > "grass root nodes" avoid problems. It would then assist the h4d group in > > answering these questions from parties interested in using the h4d > > "branded" Drupal. > > > > Are there some legal resources out there (part of the h4d group) to run > > with this issue? It is a track that can run parallel to other > > sub-projects. > > > > regards > > jim > > > > On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 15:26, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: > > > Clarification needed: we're looking at the hosting options, and if I > > > understand correctly, a4d is moving but the node concept is stalled and may > > > generate a project that is not focused on one specific candidate or org. Is > > > that correct? > > > > > > I think we need to clarify the hosting requirements for the nodeless a4d to > > > determine what Polycot can do, can we revisit that? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Behalf Of Joshua Koenig > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:19 PM > > > > To: zachary rosen > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes - I am all for it. The only concern is: if there is to strong a > > > > > connection / correlation between the Dean campaign and this non profit > > > > > service then the campaign is liable. > > > > > > > > Two points: > > > > > > > > 1) IMHO this should not be a non-profit venture. This is different from > > > > the idea of an academic project which will further the general goals of > > > > nodal/online politics. It needs to be non-partisan, but it's > > > > essentially a fee-for-service company, and that's all it should be. > > > > It's blogspot for a modified version of drupal. There are also > > > > strategic reasons for this (see my previous email). > > > > > > > > 2) As long as the class and quality of service offered is neutral, then > > > > it doesn't matter who sets it up. The proof is in the pudding, not in > > > > the pedigree. This would mean a stock turnkey install would not include > > > > a partisan drupal theme, but we could offer a theme gallery which users > > > > would be free to contribute to. > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > -josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
