Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
To ET or not to ET | 151 comments (151 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: To ET or not to ET (none / 1)
1 July 2008.
2. Eligibile applicants
To be eligible for a grant, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
-- it must be a public body or a non-profit-making organisation with a legal status and legal personality.
Consequently, natural persons -- i.e. individuals -- are not eligible,
-- it must be established in an eligible country.


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 2)
 Time is very tight, but setting up a shell company with ET FPers as Directors is cheap and child's play. Do we have any lawyers in the house?  Charitable status might take longer. Which country has the the quickest/best/most appropriate options of a non-profit organisation?  Alternatively we could look to partner with an existing non-profit.  The issue is - can we write a decent proposal in time - going on the StopBlair experience - that shouldn't be a problem - hell we can even use that as an example of multi-lingual collaboration.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 06:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 2)
Time is too tight, alas! (see below) Especially if you take into account this criterion:
Project must involve partner organisations from at least four different eligible countries other than the country of the applicant, fulfilling the eligibility criteria as defined above.


"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 06:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 3)
A French Loi 1901 association is very easy to create. Only needs 3 signatures and a trip to the préfecture...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 2)
A UK LLP takes £20 and two signatures...

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (none / 1)
Migeru:
2. Eligibile applicants
To be eligible for a grant, the applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
-- it must be a public body or a non-profit-making organisation with a legal status and legal personality.
Consequently, natural persons -- i.e. individuals -- are not eligible,
-- it must be established in an eligible country.

A UK LLP takes £20 and two signatures...

A UK LLP would qualify as a "public body" but not (automatically) as "a non-profit-making organisation", is that correct?  (I realize it would only have to be deemed one or the other, but I just wanted to make sure I understood the categories.)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy.

by marco on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 2)
For the European Commission, a public body means a state administration, a local government, a public university... As far as I know, a UK LLP is a private body.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (none / 0)
I don't see the LLP as applying.

I see the Foundation (as a "Not for Profit" "organisation") applying and receiving the money as "Custodian".

The members of the LLP then pass these funds to Operating Members to develop whatever IP exists, and whatever gets developed gets held by the "Custodian" as a "steward" of the stated ET purpose.

The LLP is simply a consensual legal agreement or protocol. It does not operate as an "Organisation". The LLP agreement could probably incorporate a Creative Commons licence, or similar.

This protocol links together the "Organisation"/ Foundation with the other stakeholders and potentially replaces (say) employment contracts (with any individuals); service contracts (with service providers);  revenue sharing agreements with "Investors" (instead of loan and grant agreements) and so on.

The LLP is not an "Organisation" at all the way I see it: it's a framework - with cross border application (which I've done a couple of times) within which we "self organise".

It could even extend to the legal relationship with the EU, but I suspect they'll want to stick with their standard boiler-plate agreements for a while longer. Probably until McKinsey suggests doing it.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue May 13th, 2008 at 09:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (none / 1)
ok, ok, lets not have a race to the bottom!!  Presumably Jerome/FPers would have make formal decision.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: To ET or not to ET (4.00 / 2)
Okay, here's my take:

The structure of Jerome at the top ONLY exists--as I understand it--because Jerome pays for the site.

Now...Jerome is also at the top when it comes to certain key issues.  When it comes to music video diaries--

It takes, I think, a discussion about what kind of public entity ET (the collective) would like to create--and if it is to be called ET LLP (LLPs can have all kinds of names)--then, yes, whoever coined the term has full veto.

But--as I understand it--Jerome is saying, "If you think it's a good idea, get on and do it!"  He can't be micro-managing every conversation--doesn't want to.

I think the idea of ET LLP is long in the air and any time the conversation turns to business structures...here it comes!  I think it would be very enjoyable to read the diaries in which such a structure was created--diaries are available to all who are allowed to comment (two bannings so far); offer initial absolute veto to every member posting as of 31st May 2008--or build a structure that would get no vetoes cast upon it--

I really don't see a seperate table where Jerome and the FPers dine--really, I don't.  I very much appreciate the work they put in and I try and add a bit to the mix--but as Jerome wrote correctly (for me); if you have the contacts--use them!  If you know how to do something useful, do it!

Now, can I have once again a rousing cheer and an offer of whatever someone would like to....someone for TribExt!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know, at £20, that's about 50 english pence per regular--it's not the money, it's the structure--as you pointed out!

I'll go back to Colman's description: "Fluid Hierarchies."

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To ET or not to ET | 151 comments (151 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: