Re: [ga] Paying for the IANA functions

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is funny language Danny as it is exactly the opposite of a non-profit tax status. The obtaining of tax free funds for the running of a tax free organization requires in principal they be donations. Yes of course this is not hard and fast, a magazine, a cake at a cake sale, an absolution from a priest, but even those require only a percentage and it is not a lot, be derived from sales of goods or services. So if the language you took out of context were directly applied the contract would either be illegal or at the least tax avoidance. Further it still does not address taxation without representation because of the obvious through tax consequences. I also have yet to find one chargeable service that IANA performs, unless we would pay for their moral guidance - not likely. And even further what the language suggests is an outright monopoly and can only be supported if completely necessary for the security of the United States, in which case the international community co!
ncept
 flies right out the window.
 
Not going to happen in the current atmosphere.
 
Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Henderson writes:  "You share an international resource. You share in its costs."
 
The Contract Between ICANN and the United States Government for the Performance of the IANA Function envisions the prospect of parties paying for the IANA services on the basis of fair and equitable fees in which the aggregate charges will not exceed the cost of providing the IANA services (a cost-recovery program):
 
"On or after the effective date of this purchase order, the Contractor may establish and collect fees from third parties (i.e. other than the United States Government) for the functions performed under this purchase order, provided the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which approval shall not be withheld unreasonably provided the fee levels are fair and equitable and provided the aggregate fees charged during the term of this purchase order do not exceed the cost of providing the requirements of this purchase order." http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-17mar03.htm  
 
Perhaps someone in ICANN Management can explain why ICANN has not yet chosen to follow this seemingly reasonable path.  


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com