Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On 13 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> Did you call ISP fees a tax, too? Even if they are subsummed in your
>> power or telephone bill.
>
>No, I have a choice between some 100 ISP's, maybe more. How the tax to
>ICANN is paid is irrelevant. VAT is also paid indirectly.

You miss my point (or vice versa). In order to transport your packets
through the net, the infrastructure must be payed. This includes the routing
infratructure and (of course) the address managing infrastructure. How this
is transfered to your bill is mostly undefined. Now you can see the costs
directly. Does this turn the cost to a tax?

I do not say, that ICANNs expenses are necessary. I doubt it.

>> I clearly see your bold marks on 'monopoly', but ccTLDs are not covered. So
>> there is no 'monopoly' fee there. Do you still call it a tax?
>
>If one company has a licenso to sell rifles, just one company, can you
>claim there is no monopoly by telling me a lot of other companies can and
>do sell smaller guns, knives etc.? I wouldn't think so.

You mix levels. If a single company has the license for an algorithm and
requires a fee from everyone who sell products with this algorithm per
selled copy, would you call this a tax? I won't.

>Also: ccTLDs refuse to pay the ICANN tax.

Natural.

>The fact that ICANN had the idea it could demand money on a per domain
>basis without there being a contract, clearly shows that ICANN thought of
>it as a tax.

I read, that ICANN run into trouble because NSI refuses to pay it's part.
That's why ICANN and ccTLDs came to an agreement about a proportional
payment from the ccTLDs.

Surely I'll be wrong, but I did not find the URL proving it.

>It will deny this of course. Still, the demand from the ccTLDs was not
>based on a contract. So?

I strongly assume, that there was an agreement.

>> I do distinguish between fees (company) and taxes (government). Sorry.
>> Mixing those seems to be a method to increasing FUD.
>
>Absolutely true, if you mean mixing them as they are in reality, nit what
>lawyers call them. Why do you believe those lawyers?

I refer to definitions not to laywers. That's all. But we miss to discuss
the real problems. Naming differences are not interesting.

[URL]
>This is mostly rather old stuff, predating the introduction of competition
>on the registrar level for com/net/org. Do you wish to bring that into
>this discussion? Please, explain how it is relevant to the matter of tax
>or fee.

I tried to find an evidence for the introduction of a tax instead of a fee.
Sorry.

>> My impression: Those who fear the influence of the US government oppose
>> against the alternative financial model. Cool. Very cool.
>> 
>> Of course the current solution is far from perfect.
>
>I am afraid you are too succinct for me here.

Charging the ccTLDs without contracts is not possible. OTOH how will you pay
the expences of an organisation not longer payed by a government?

>> > No, the ccTLDs, some of them, are clever. They are in a position to get a
>> > contract and a tax on their terms. Their TLDs predate ICANN :-)
>> 
>> Exactly.
>
>I knew we would agree in the end.

So let's discuss something more important.