Re: [ga-roots] ICANN is well aware that "multiple roots arepossible and coming."

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

I do Kristy and understand your thought for the fee based revenue model. A
Nonprofit can choose to do things that way, but it isn't advised in most
cases. Then it could become taxable revenue. As a 501C-3 if Icann charges a
fee for services rendered they could be subject to taxation under the IRS
rules. They can accept donations. They can provide services. They cannot
charge money per service rendered unless it relates directly to their stated
purpose. If the services are covered explicitly in their mission statement,
then they may be able to keep the non-taxable status of the income.

If they sold ICANN T-Shirts the income would be taxable. It's called UTBI or
similar letters. Unrelated Taxable Business Income or similar phrase and
applies to Nonprofits. They don't have providing T-Shirts to the public in
their mission statement.

I'm offline while writing this so not looking at the ICANN mission
statement, so I can't say whether the services mentioned would be related
income or not. But that is how it is applied.

Nonprofits are not intended to provide services for a fee or sell products
for a profit. They are generally supposed to provide services for free and
receive donations and/or grants to support them.

That is how ICANN should be doing things. What they can get away with
through technicalities and flaws in the system can be another story.
Charging a $50,000 application fee for the new tlds may have been improper
in itself. It is being reviewed by people who know much better than I do.

I also hold the position of Founder and Executive Director of one California
Nonprofit and am Founder and President of another. ICANN has to follow the
same rules we do. Lawyers review our procedures. Lawyers now are reviewing
ICANN's as well.

ICANN has to be more transparent in the deals they are making and have to be
representing those it is charged with representing or they will be found to
be in violation of their bylaws. If that would be found to be the case, then
the Attorney General of the State of California would have the power to
remove the BoD and replace them with others to manage the nonprofit.

There is no International Corporation here. There is a California Nonprofit
Organization called ICANN that THINKS they are an International body.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] ICANN is well aware that "multiple roots arepossible
and coming."


> Yes, and if the Service Provider hires ICANN or another group to collect
> payment for services; they are entitled to a fee for the service to cover
> the costs - I hope someone who understands Not-for- Profits climes in
here...
>
> At 10:40 AM 5/23/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >Ms. McKee,
> >
> >The judgment call you lay out so logically below is easy. And I therefor
would
> >suggest that we could all reach consensus on your proposition. Let us use
> >that as
> >a basis for discussing complications.
> >
> >Non-profits with government monopoly status should use a different
revenue
> >model
> >than fee for services.
> >(here we either agree or we do not - I believe the law agrees with this
> >statement)
> >
> >In the use of most public resources, the contracting concessionaire must
> >provide
> >the resource at below market value, but they get it for free, in a sense
as in
> >ICANN does not pay DoC.
> >
> >Now here we may have serious disagreement.  Activity in ICANN should be
free.
> >Entities which obtain profits from contracts with ICANN should support
all
> >interaction with ICANN which is not for profit.
> >So should a ccTLD pay ICANN, absolutely not! They should pay APNIC (or
> >whoever)
> >but not ICANN.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Kristy McKee wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Bruce,
> > >
> > > At 09:52 AM 5/23/2001 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
> > > >From:   http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >ccTLD Minutes From Melbourne. The ccTLD constituency posted its
> > minutes from
> > > >two recent meetings yesterday, continuing its excellent practice of
> > > >providing detailed minutes that ascribe statements to specific
> > persons. The
> > > >notes are too detailed to summarize here, but a couple of points were
> > > >especially interesting.
> > > >
> > > >The minutes from the ccTLDs meetings in Melbourne show that a
consensus
> > > >funding model for ICANN is still difficult to find. For example, the
> > > >representative from .uk, one of the largest ccTLDs, stated that his
> > registry
> > > >would never sign a contract with ICANN that tied funding to numbers
of
> > > >domain name registrations. As to what the ccTLDs are receiving in
> > return for
> > > >their payments, many stated that the contract should be a fee for
> > > >services -- specifically root service.
> > >
> > > The cost to deliver a good stable root service is tangible and
> > > evidence-able.  Why would anyone not agree to pay someone else to
provide
> > > root service if 1) they could do a better job that "we" could and 2)
the
> > > cost for service was understandable, as in "our" Auditor could see the
> > > value of using the service and projecting the cost in three to five
years
> > > for the same service.
> > >
> > > >On the subject of root service, one interesting exchange revealed
that
> > ICANN
> > > >is well aware that "multiple roots are possible and coming." Part of
the
> > > >value proposition pitched to the ccTLDs for signing contracts with
> > ICANN was
> > > >that they would help make ICANN's "a legitimate root," which the
internet
> > > >community could rely on "as a domain name system starting point."
> > > >
> > > >The ccTLDs also posted the minutes from their May 3rd AdCom meeting,
> > > >including the agenda for their upcoming meetings in Stockholm May
31st and
> > > >June 1st.
> > > >-- May 23, 2001 --
> > > >
> > > >/Bruce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> > > >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > >("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> > > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html