| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> My general assertion here is that: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1) If the foundation is prevented legally from accepting a member due to |
| 6 |
> their country of origin, its also probable that the foundation is unable to |
| 7 |
> accept any contributions from said member for similar reasons. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2) If the foundation is able to legally accept a member due to their country |
| 10 |
> of origin, its probable that the foundation is able to accept their |
| 11 |
> contributions. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I suspect that the gap where the foundation cannot legally accept a member, |
| 14 |
> but somehow it can accept their contributions) is not noteworthy. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I tend to agree. The other good news here is that US embargoes have |
| 18 |
been dwindling of late. Iran and Cuba were the really big ones in the |
| 19 |
past, and both of those are on their way out. However, this is one of |
| 20 |
the downsides to having your sole legal existence in the US. I'm not |
| 21 |
sure to what extent having independent orgs in multiple countries |
| 22 |
helps here. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rich |
Archives