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
