Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > I don't find this appalling at all.
>
> That's a shame.
>
> > It is indeed a very safe feature of the system. Consider the
> > alternatives. Something gets drafted that (despite good intentions)
> > created tremendous inequities accidentally. Imagine the fallout if
> > there was no way to right the wrongs. IMHO this is a feature not a bug.
> > Remember that it took a conscious <G> act of Congress to take this step.
>
> An agency(or in this case their contractor) collected what was at the time
> an illegal tax. The U.S. Congress then reotractively made the tax legal so
> that the funds could be retained.
>
> I apologize if I am simply restating what occured, but I am amazed that
> anyone could find that a "feature" rather than a bug.
What you fail to recognize is that they did their research and came to
the conclusion that it wasn't a tax. I'm not saying I agree with that
interpretation, but they did get one. The fact that it was declared a
tax in court later on is probably more representative of the defense
they mounted (or lack thereof) than an actual trial on the issues. I
for one would not want to bet on the outcome of a 'real' trial (that
hypothetical situation where everyone shows up and makes their best
moves and the judges don't make any mistakes). In this situation, it
is obvious that someone didn't show up as a decision was rendered on
motions. They didn't get anywhere near a full trial on the actual
issues.
Congress merely moved to clean up an unexpected mess created by the
executive branch. You expect them to do otherwise? As Bill Lovell
said:
> 2) What else you gonna do with that $62 mill? Pay it back?
> Give it to ICANN? (Ooo -- I'm getting ill.) Give it to all the ISP
> and other varieties of entrepreneur that populate these pages?
> Well, of course. (heh.)
>
> > They are your elected representatives. If you don't like their
> > decisions you have the power to vote them out of office.
>
> So I am told.
>
You can't have it both ways, Patrick. Either you are in favor of
representative government or you aren't. You may not like the
results, but that's a consequence of democracy. As I said before,
would you rather ICANN was running your government?
I do agreee with Dave Farber's later post. I have to admit there is
an inconsistency between "no taxes on the internet" policy statement
and "ok, just this retroactive one". And yes, I know those statements
come from separate branches of govt. but it doesn't make it any the
less inconsistent.
> > Just consider an alternative where you don't have those powers, where
> > decisions were taken by un-elected non-representative beings. Where
> > you had no immediate way to right wrongs. What would you call that:
> > ICANN???
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
> (408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
