Re: [ga] .com, and possible "material breach" of the contract

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point Richard. It is akin to a tx and therefore requires ICANN to have
an active constituency that represents the users that will pay the tax.

I believe it would hold up in court. That may be the action that has to be
taken. Besides ICANN would cave to lawsuits. That is evident.

Some of you with more legal experience please comment.

1. Can this annual price hike be related to a tax in the legal sense?
2. If so, does law require representation in ICANN or does our supposed
representation in the US government suffice?
3. If yes to #2, how does that affect representation for non-us users?
4. If the answers to #1 and #2 were yes, would it hold up in a court of law?
5. Even if the answers were not clear on #1 and #2, would a lawsuit shine
enough light on the subject and cause enough concern among the ICANN BoD,
that it might be worth the effort?

Chris McElroy, President,
Kidsearch Network
http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
http://www.RunawayTeens.org
http://www.disastervictims.org
http://thingsthatjustpissmeoff.blogspot.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "George Kirikos"
<gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] .com, and possible "material breach" of the contract


> What concerns me (among other things) is that this 'taxation' is not
> accompanied by representation on behalf of the people being taxed.
>
> It is abundantly clear that ICANN has excluded ordinary internet users
from
> meaningful representation in its processes. Even its supposed body for
> individual internet users (ALAC) bans the membership of... individuals!
>
> Prior to that, ICANN's motives and intentions were transparent when it
> expelled the elected representatives of the At Large movement from its
Board
> Room.
>
> Taxation without representation is more like the start of tyranny. Hence
> Verisign's newly-acquired powers to raise costs to registrants on an
annual
> basis have been granted without reference to the people who will actually
be
> footing the bill.
>
> ICANN's craven surrender to vested interests, and its rejection of
bottom-up
> democracy, are profoundly disturbing.
>
> Yrs,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > What's very disturbing to me... is that as ICANN is
> > supposed to be a non-profit corporation it... has the right to
> > collect fees (Basically a Tax) on registrants...
>
>