At 10:27 PM 6/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>bill:
>
>if that be the case then i apologize for the misunderstanding ...
>sometime the threads get so long in these messages that it becomes difficult
>to "attribute".for this misconception you have my apologies..
>ken stubbs
No problem. My "how did you get" was a query only.
Today is my day of triumph: two -- check that -- TWO --
fully rational and cordial discussions on this screwball
list in one day!! :-)
Bill
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 10:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] S. 705
>
>
>>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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
