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

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

* Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On 12 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> We might use different words for the same action. ICANN can not tax
>> domains. They can create contracts with registrars containing such a
>> payment method. But this is a fee, not a tax.
>
> You buy those legal niceties yourself? In fact it is a tax even if it is
> enforced through a contract with the *monopoly* registry.

Did you call ISP fees a tax, too? Even if they are subsummed in your power
or telephone bill.

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?

I do distinguish between fees (company) and taxes (government). Sorry.
Mixing those seems to be a method to increasing FUD.

>> This contract based fee is the reason to do not apply on ccSLDs, due to
>> missing contracts.
>
> According to ICANN they apply. ICANN does see it as a tax, even though it
> calls it something else.

Source? Sorry. This would be very strange.

http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,20293,00.html
  talks about the .com fee and fuds agaist the registry agreement template.
http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,20887,00.html
  talks about the 1$ fee. The term tax comes from anti-tax lobbyists.
The messages in the icann-ML are complete senseless FUD. Never saw a such a
  dumb try to fool people. But it does only speak about com, net and org.
http://www.opensrs.org/archives/policy-list/0006/0002.html
  a very good insight in the charging of ccTLDs. AFAI understand it, it does
  refer to a ccTLD proposal how to get money for ICANN. This is different from
  a tax.
http://www.mids.org/mn/1006/za.html
  same background as the message before, but better readable and contains
  the conflict discussed by Jeannette and me. It says more clearly that the
  Mio $ are obtained from the ccTLDs wighted by there domain size.
http://www.media-visions.com/icann-board.htm
  very good discussion about ICANN. Including the background of the $1 fee
  for every domain: NSI won't lose it's monopoly.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/events/Commerce-Scribe-072299.html
  interesting minutes. Provides questions and answers where the authority to
  'tax' the net come from and interestingly cross the problem, that the
  director board is technically insufficient.
...

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.

>>> Especially since you were so vocal against new gTLDs, which would
>>> through the tax improve ICANNs financial position significantly. So I
>>> do think, that you should have known about it, yes. Is that wrong?
>> 
>> Your reasoning is valid. I do not get the idea why the financial
>> situation of ICANN should be more important than the DNS system. So I
>> did not even came up with the importance of financial problems while
>> dealing with my opinion of the future system. I still believe that
>> those are neglectable.
>
> Of course more tax is not a good reason for more gTLDs at all. I agree
> with you here. But it does come in handy for ICANN. And the companies
> applying for the new gTLDs right now will be more than happy to pay the
> $0.33 tax. Running a registry is a very lucrative business. NetSol's
> recent takeover prooves that.

This is still no reason for new gTLDs it is a strong argument to oppose it.

>> > It has been in the press recently though, when a substantive number of
>> > ccTLD registries refused to pay it...
>> 
>> Of course, there is no contract.
>
> 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.