<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>What is restricted by UK law, is gracefully resolved in the
Associate membership.<br>
Of course, the OSMF has to comply with the companies act, no doubt
about it, and it might change as we are looking for alternatives
regarding the Brexit.<br>
<br>
This restricts however full participation and inclusiveness, a
core value of OSM, just as privacy.<br>
Many countries don't have addresses, neither do some have a
"western" personal name concept. Revealing your address, exact
locations and name might also have other motivations like
political or gender without endangering life and limb.</p>
<p>We have an advisory board, maybe a different or similar
construction, apart from the strict legal requirements is a
possibility. I mean a "open and inclusive", an "executive" board
which determines the policies, strategic plan, operational
management etc... as a board accessible, open to the full
electorate or OSM community. Essentially reducing the "legal"
board to a purely administrative and ceremonial organism. They
just sign and confirm all the decisions made by the "open" board.</p>
<p>I am not a lawyer, but for sure some other organisations must
have faced the same concerns and it's worth to look at it in the
reviewing AoA process and maybe relocation of the OSMF.<br>
Associate membership seems a good compromise, however disregards
some basic human rights and other laws which should offer
protection for those affected by personal safety and security. We
don't want to be a platform for terrorists or criminals, but on
the other hand we shouldn't impose restrictions or comply with
legal structures or laws that are against the global OSM
communities core values, free, open, respect for privacy,
inclusive and diverse.<br>
</p>
<p>Greetings,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/08/2021 11:53, Frederik Ramm
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1d2817a5-bf8f-3c70-81fb-fcf3d6442226@remote.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi,
On 06.08.21 09:48, michael spreng wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">By the way, I don't like the formulation "full" member that you chose.
Normal members are governed by the UK companies act, which has severe
privacy implications. Associate members are as fully OSMF members as the
Normal ones, just avoiding the companies act. Of course that has also
implications in slightly diminished voting capabilities: no vote on AoA
changes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I would like to underline that - the associate member category was not
created so that we could have "second class members", it was created so
that people who are more privacy-conscious could join the OSMF.
The Companies Act requires that the "company" (here, the OSMF) keeps a
register of members (here, "normal" members), with the following
information:
* real name and full address
* date when joined
* date when left
and this list - including the full addresses and names of all members -
must be made available "for inspection" to any other member of the OSMF
free of charge. The OSMF must also give a *copy* of this list to anyone
(member or non-member) who asks (but may require a fee for this).
(See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2</a> for
details)
This means that if you become a normal member, essentially your full
name and address and when you joined become public, and this information
is even retained after you leave the OSMF. Because this is enshrined in
the Companies Act, it trumps any data protection legislation -
essentially, by becoming a member of a limited company governed by the
UK companies act, you agree to these rules and if you don't like them,
don't become a member.
If we offer free "normal" membership to mappers of whom we, until that
point, know nothing more than their user name and email, they will still
have to submit their personal details if they want to become a normal
member. I don't know the penalties for falsifying this information but
the penalties for not complying with the membership list rules are quite
serious so I expect that in the long run the OSMF will have to take
steps to make sure the addresses it keeps on file (and releases to
members of the public on request) are correct. So no "ha ha I'll just
sign up with a fake address".
Hence, please don't talk down the "associate" membership, it is the best
thing we could do for member privacy.
This might of course all change - for the better or for the worse - if
the OSMF should move to another jurisdiction altogether ;)
Bye
Frederik
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>