___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Jay, all of a sudden you are awfully active for someone who has "washed
his hands" of ICANN. But the increased level of activity has not improved
the product, which continues (I presume intentionally) to pay no attention
to the real world. How much of the $70 fee (or really the $119 fee that
NSI actually collects from many people) do you suppose goes toward
promoting and protecting competition? You might ask the testbed registrars
how eager NSI is for new competition; the proper measure of NSI's
dedication to a competitive environment (assuming anyone would really
believe that they thought that was a good idea) is not its rhetoric but its
actions, and so far its actions say clearly that NSI's goal is to preserve
its monopoly position for as long as possible in any way it can. As long
as we are talking taxation without representation, how much say do you or
anyone else have in NSI's fee, or how it is spent? How much benefit are
you (well, you may be a bad example) or others in the community getting
from the monopoly profits that are fueling the multi-billion dollar market
value of NSI? Have they been passing out stock options to the Internet
community? Exactly what has NSI done to promote a community discussion and
attempt to reach community consensus on issues like dispute resolution;
last time I looked, I think NSI adopted a policy that advanced its
interests and told people to take it or leave it. How many global
discussions has NSI hosted, and paid for, so that interested persons around
the world could participate in the policy debate? How would you pay for
all these efforts, and who would you suggest take them on? Or are you
satisfied with the status quo -- maybe with the addition of a .per TLD? I
have no doubt that you could comfortably coexist with NSI, as you have
shown us throughout this process, but it is hard to see how that scenario
benefits the rest of the Internet community. I hope you will rethink your
retirement and stick around; it is useful to have someone spout the NSI
line in public, since they seem to prefer to do it in private.
Blah, blah, blah . . .
The point is that ICANN is setting up an
arbitrary tax, while it is excluding those
paying the tax from any say within ICANN.
Can you say "Taxation without Representation?"
Further, ICANN is undertaking a huge expansion in
the costs of "technical administrative functions,"
as is its supposed function. Remember, the IANA's
budget was only around $500,000, a full order of
magnitude (i.e. 10 *times*) less than ICANN's
proposed budget.
Finally, where are the checks and balances?
Who in their right mind would give the power
to tax to the same organization who will be
spending the money.
Bill, it sounds like you skipped your
Constitutional law class ;-(
Jay.
At 08:39 PM 6/20/99 , Bill Lovell wrote:
>Gentlemen:
>
>I quote to you the following from a recent online news article:
>>749 and a companion bill, S. 705 sponsored by Sen. John
>>Ashcroft, R-Mo. - would revoke some of the fees that ICANN
>>charges domain name holders.
>
>As one who had early on proposed providing a $1 fee to ICANN
>for each domain name registration -- at a time when ICANN was
>operating on a shoe string and surviving only afterwards by an
>influx of money from some big industry players -- I do so for the
>purpose of expressing my opposition to that legislation. One
>reason for such a fee is to provide a "thinned out" source of
>income so that ICANN could pay its bills without risk of it
>being "captured" by the big money, trademark holding, and
>monopolistic interests in the Internet world. It would not be
>a "tax," as the no-tax extremists would have it, but rather a
>user fee whereby those who use the internet pay for it.
>
>In a recent court decision, it was held that fees charged for
>acquiring handicapped vehicle license stickers were not a
>fee but a tax, but the reasons for that decision were (a) those
>needing handicapped licenses were not in that condition by
>their own choice; and (b) in any event, there was a specific
>statutory prohibition against imposing such fees. Those like
>myself who elect to acquire domain names on the internet
>do so by choice, as by choice we may also decide to visit
>Yellowstone National Park and pay a user fee there as well.
>There is nothing "tax-like" at all about a similar user fee in
>acquiring a domain name registration, and I hope that you
>will make it known -- amidst all the "Boston Tea Party"
>blather that has already hit the internet and that you will
>no doubt hear in Congress -- that not everyone who enjoys
>the fruits of the internet is quite that rabid.
>
>Thank you for your consideration.
>
>William S. Lovell
>17630 S. W. Butternut Dr.
>Aloha, OR 97007-3929
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
