Ken and all, The problem here Ken old son, is that there has been NO "Community COnsensus" on decisions that ICANN has made and acted upon unilaterly.... Ken Stubbs wrote: > FIRST... PLEASE LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR ALL CAPS... THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MY > E-MAIL CLIENT FORMATTING. > NOW ON TO THE BODY ... > > TONY > > LET RE REFRESH YOUR MEMORY HERE AND GIVE YOU A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. > > 1. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THE NSI CEO GABE BATTISTA TESTIFIED > BEFORE > HOUSE SCIENCE COMITTEE AND NSI WROTE A LETTER TO COMMERCE SUPPORTING THE > CREATION OF ICANN AS A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE > 2. THE WHITE PAPER STATED THE OBVIOUS WHEN IT SAID THAT (SINCE IT > ASSUMED THE END OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING) "THE NEW CORPORATION COULD BE > FUNDED BY DOMAIN NAME REGISTRIES, REGIONAL IP REGISTRIES, OR OTHER ENTITIES > IDENTIFIED BY THE BOARD." IF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS TO TAKE OVER THE > MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS AREA FROM THE USG, THE PRIVATE SECTOR > HAS TO FIND A WAY TO COVER THE COSTS OF THOSE ACTIVITIES. > 3.I HAVE SEEN A CONSISTANT REFUSAL BY "KEY PARTIES" TO PARTICIPATE IN THE > DEVELOPMENT OF CONSENSUS POLICIES OR TO ABIDE BY THEM. > WHEN THE COMMUNITY IS, BECAUSE OF THAT REFUSAL, THEN FORCED TO COME UP WITH > ANOTHER MECHANISM TO FUND WHAT MOST OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY WANT TO SEE > HAPPEN -- THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSENSUS POLICIES -- YOU > AND THESE "KEY PARTIES" THEN ATTACK THAT EFFORT AS WELL, ASSERTING THAT > ICANN IS SOME SORT OF REGULATOR IMPOSED ON THE COMMUNITY AND TO PAY FOR ITS > ILLICIT ACTIVITIES IS TAXING --MEANING THAT IT IS FORCING PEOPLE TO PAY > SOMETHING THEY DID NOT AGREE TO. > > 4.I MIGHT ALSO MENTION THAT . ON JUNE 6, 1998, IN A SPEECH, (TAKEN FROM > THE NSI SITE), DON TELAGE REFERRED POSITIVELY TO THE TRANSITION FROM > GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO USER FEES. ALSO IN NSI'S 2/26/99 COMMENTS TO ICANN ON > THE REGISTRAR GUIDELINES, NSI CALLED FOR PAYMENTS FROM REGISTRARS > "VOLUNTARILY NEGOTIATED" -- IT APPEARS THAT THE NUMBER OF REGISTRARS WILLING > TO WORK WITH THAT SYSTEM (I.E. 30-40 NOW SOON TO BE WELL OVER 50) WOULD > INDICATE THAT THAT THEY MUST FEEL THIS IS NOT AN EXCESSIVE BURDEN AND THAT > THEY HAVE CONFIDENCE IN ICANN TO RESPONSIBLY MANAGE THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF > THEIR END OF THE BUSINESS OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ELECTED TO GET INVOLVED. > > KEN STUBBS > P.S. SOUNDS TO ME THAT THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS NSI (HAVING THE LARGEST > PIECE OR THE PIE AT THE MOMENT) IS CHOKING OF THE IDEA OF HAVING TO "PONY > UP" THE MAJORITY OF THE > CURRENT PROJECTED FEES ... ON TOP OF THAT THEY HAVE ADOPTED THE ATTITUDE > THAT "SINCE WE ARE THE ONE'S PUTTING UP THE BIG BUCKS , WE WANT THE MAJOR > SAY AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THEM) I SUPPOSE TAKING $5MILLION OUT OF > MY BOTTOM LINE WOULD CAUSE ME TO CHOKE TOO.. BUT THEN LOOK AT THE SIZE OF > THE PIE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE AMASSED AS A MONOPOLY AND THE FACT THAT THEY > ALSO HAVE THE REGISTRY TOO.. > > (INTERPRETATION... STOCK PRICE TAKES A "MAJOR HIT" IF THEY HAVE TO START > PAYING) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: A.M. Rutkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Ken Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 9:33 AM > Subject: Re: Speculation (was Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act) > > >At 04:05 PM 7/1/99 , Ken Stubbs wrote: > >>using a term like that is kinda like using emotionally loaded terms like > >>$1.00 "internet tax" rather than a "fee" charged to registrars > > > >Fees have a direct cost of service relationship > >equally applied for the service performed. For > >example, Kinko's charges a fee for producing a > >photocopy. > > > >In the instant case, we have a government created > >corporation developing the budget for its bloated > >bureaucracy and outside counsel that decided to > >raise its revenue by a levy on everyone in the > >COM, ORG, NET zones. That's not a fee, it's an > >unlawful tax levy to support a government created > >corporation. > > > > > >--tony > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
