At 10:02 PM 6/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>so if we pay a registrar a renewal fee for the domain and the registrar pays
>ICANN $1.00 from the funds that we pay the registrar the money paid changes
>character
>from a fee to a tax. ?
>
>an interesting "twist" here ?

Ken: How are you getting that from what I said? I'm arguing that
the $1 is an arguably legitimate user fee, and NOT a tax as the
Boston Tea Party shouters would make it.

Bill
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 9:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] S. 705
>
>
>>At 09:30 PM 6/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>out of curosity...
>>>what do we call the $$$ we pay to the registry for domain name renewals
>>
>>Um, a "domain name registration renewal fee?"
>>
>>Bill Lovell
>>>
>>>ken stubbs
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Gene Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 10:16 PM
>>>Subject: RE: [IFWP] S. 705
>>>
>>>
>>>Not me Bill...
>>>
>>>I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
>>>
>>>Gene...
>>>+++++
>>>Hi Bill Lovell, you wrote on 6/20/99 8:06:18 PM:
>>>
>>>>At 08:52 PM 6/20/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>
>>>>And since we are already taxed for phone/telecomm usage, and corporations
>>>>are likely to be taxed for Internet usage (and are certainly taxed for
>>>>telecomm), is this not a frivolous tax?
>>>>
>>>>I am only playing devil's advocate here.  This is a toughy.  Any
>>>>reasonable
>>>>person could easily stand on either side of the line and view things in a
>>>>different light.
>>>>
>>>>I am still looking for a compelling reason for the tax/fee.  ICANN
>>>>operational costs are not good enough alone.
>>>>
>>>>Keep up the banter...
>>>>
>>>>Hey, Gene. Worthy discussion here. After all, I was wrong once
>>>>-- I believe it was back in '06 -- and who knows, it could happen.
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>Bill Lovell
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>+++++++++++++++++++++
>>>I'm very happy @.HOME
>>>Gene Marsh
>>>president, anycastNET Incorporated
>>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to