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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On 13 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:

> * 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.

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.

> 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.

Also: ccTLDs refuse to pay the ICANN tax. 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. It will deny
this of course. Still, the demand from the ccTLDs was not based on a
contract. So? 

> 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?

> >> 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.
> ...

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.

> 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.

> >>> 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.

I knew we would agree in the end.

--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl % 
%* marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org *%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%