Some facts and thoughts: 1. Asgardia **is** (should be?) a Nation, *as **it choosen** to be a Nation*. At the moment is **not** a "*recognized* Nation", but "*recognition*" is **out** of our control, when "*being a Nation*" is **into** it: it seems we don't need others' recognition "*to be*" a Nation (legal support may be required, on this statement). Here a lawyer may add something, but I can see Palestine which **is** a Nation, even if (nearly) not recognized (2014 recognition by Sweden, with an embassy in Stockolm). An element we lack, about *being a Nation* we can find into this definition: "*State: organized political group that exercises authority over a **particular territory***" ( ): at the moment we're lacking the ***territory***. But one of the projects (may I say the most important one?) is exactly to "*establish a territory*" in the **space**. So, at the moment, it seems we *declared to be* a Nation, but we're *not meeting the requirements* (if they're mandatory): something like a little "undefined state". We have an *Head of Nation*, but we're not having a *Government*. *Maybe this is the reason of the trademark registration: to avoid the (future) Nation's name to be registered by someone other (patent trolling like) so that it won't be available for the moment we'll need to use it*. That's not necessarily something bad, as soon as Asgardia-the-Nation will own it's name at the moment of becoming a Nation (it seems a snake biting it's own tail, I know ;-)))). 2. After that "event" (declaration), over 500.000 people decided to *register* and over 171.000 people *confirmed* their registration *as citizens of the Nation*. 3. Mr. Ashurbeyli is the *Head **of the Nation*** (he calls himself like this **and** we explicitly agreed). With this title, he is writing to other countries' Head of Nations (20 jan to Mr. Trump (USA), 25 jan to Pravind Kumar Jugnauth (Rep. of Mauritius), etc.). 4. I wrote about the "*idea of a Nation*" not considering the legal aspects of what this implied, as I'm not a lawyer but, as we can see, our present state is not that well defined (even for a lawyer, IMHO). 5. "*Asgardia*" name and *Asgardia.space* **are** trademarks of **AIRC**, at least for the moment (see the pt.1 considerations above). 6. Who is writing Asgardia's ***Constitution*** should pay great attention to the previous mentioned points so to avoid, for the time the Constitution will become legal and the Nation will own it's territory, AIRC to own "Asgardia" (the name and the Nation): there should be at least an article, maybe the first one, where it should be stated something like that: "*Asgardia, as a sovereign Nation, is owned by it's people, leaded by the Head of Nation and it's Government choosen by democratic elections, and based on a territory*".

Heh, I only reviewed my own input, but still... The nation does exist... This has been declared officially and it is collecting citizens. That's a solid fact, along with each of the 171k has effectively declared that it is a real nation, and Dr. Ashurebyli is in charge as is this doesn't become an official status - outside of our collective agreement or operations - until one or more nation(s) begin to concede that we are also a nation. It exists, it has to be true, I read it on the internet. I also read that Dr Ashurbeyli was Asgardian Prime - facetiousness aside it's reasonably safe to assume this was the inital intention. However, Asgardia isn't a registered trademark of Asgardia which is likely what one would expect, or even Dr Ashurbeyli, but that of a "seperated" subcompany of Dr. Ashurebeyli's. This is a defacto decleration of specific ownership. It is not property of itself or an individual but that of a company. There's lots to a name - more than the letters that make it up. Ofc, a file by any other name still MD5's the same but from a legal standpoint, especially in regards to property ownership, names matter. As does: All rights reserved, which is intended to signify all it produces. It's not an exaggeration of anything. Allow me to paraphrase: If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Tree's fall, it's a fact. Just need other people to hear it, and then agree that this noise was indeed a tree and then the concept is proven. People arguing if it is or isn't a tree doesn't adjust it actually being a tree. Or not. The truth only becomes the truth when you decide to believe it.

> Would Phicksur care to highlight some excaggeration and paraphrasing? No, not really. It is detracting from the original thread. I will do it anyway, just to put the matter to rest, I hope. EyeR wroteth: > With regards to ownership, that would fall unto AIRC - which Dr. Ashurbeyli is also the founder and owner of. Quite why a nation becomes the property of a company - which is kind of backwards to how every other corporate structure on the planet operates, and this company the nation belongs to is already registered under another country - is a mystery to me. The _nation_ is not the property of a company. The _trademark_ is owned by the company, because once a trademark is filed it has to be owned by someone or something. The _nation_ does not exist, yet, and therefore cannot be owned by anyone, nor can it own anything. Elwe Thor wroteth: > About the corporate/nation thing, the reason of the actual asset should be 'cause of Asgardia is still not a Nation but just an idea we're working on: for the moment it will become a Nation, it will be strange that a Nation will be owned by a company (as it should be the contrary). At the moment the company is having an idea. The exaggeration here is that a _nation_ will be owned by a _company_, a fallacious exaggeration of the company owning the trademark. Nothing owns the nation, because it does not yet exist, and when Asgardia does come into existence its legal framework is likely (supposition here, I accept) that it will preclude being owned by anything. If not, I know I have no interest in being part of a nation that is owned by a company, nor would I expect many here have differing views. The paraphrasing is, by definition, the fact that he took your statements and said them again in his own words. Likely for clarity's sake. It was not, however, an elaboration, as no new information was provided. Please carry on with your argument. I honestly do not care enough about the outcome enough to weigh in on either side. I simply asked for clarification on Elwe's comment and expressed my being perturbed by the bad data.