Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > I don't find this appalling at all.
>
> That's a shame.
>
> > It is indeed a very safe feature of the system. Consider the
> > alternatives. Something gets drafted that (despite good intentions)
> > created tremen
may i answer? the answer should scare the shit out of everone here and
in effect thank god congress grabbed the money and gave it to nsf for NGI
and internet 2.
the fund was originally known as the the internet intellectual
infrastructure fund. it was known by mitchel and others that
ev
Wait till the rest of the world adds its taxes. The USA Admin said no taxes on the net
and then placed one.
At 11:42 AM 5/19/99 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 1999, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > I don't find this appalling at all.
>
>That's a shame.
>
> > It is indeed a very safe
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> I don't find this appalling at all.
That's a shame.
> It is indeed a very safe feature of the system. Consider the
> alternatives. Something gets drafted that (despite good intentions)
> created tremendous inequities accidentally. Imagine the fal
At 07:34 PM 5/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>From: "FEDIX OPPORTUNITY ALERT"
>
>A US appeals court ruled Friday that the money in a $62-million
>Internet Development fund was collected legally from registrants of
>Internet addresses and could be spent on internet development. The
I don't find this appalling at all. It is indeed a very safe feature
of the system. Consider the alternatives. Something gets drafted
that (despite good intentions) created tremendous inequities
accidentally. Imagine the fallout if there was no way to right the
wrongs. IMHO this is a feature
Bill Lovell a écrit:
> Some relevant questions arise, however, and without taking
> any positions on them, I'll ask, anyway:
>
> 1) One complaint is that NSI has been getting beaucoup bucks
> on its contract, but the USG (i.e., us taxpayers) got nuthin. So
> isn't $62 mill in university researc
Patrick Greenwell a écrit:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> > The US District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that it
> > was a tax but said that Congress could retroactively authorize it,
> > which lawmakers did later that month.
>
> This most of all, is particularly a
At 08:15 PM 5/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>> The US District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that it
>> was a tax but said that Congress could retroactively authorize it,
>> which lawmakers did later that month.
>
>This most of all, is particular
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
> The US District Court for the District of Columbia agreed that it
> was a tax but said that Congress could retroactively authorize it,
> which lawmakers did later that month.
This most of all, is particularly appalling
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
From: "FEDIX OPPORTUNITY ALERT"
A US appeals court ruled Friday that the money in a $62-million
Internet Development fund was collected legally from registrants of
Internet addresses and could be spent on internet development. The
news delighted officials at the National S
11 matches
Mail list logo
