Re: [ga] FUNDING

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Gentlemen;

Your comments are very helpful in determining true issues from possible
issues.
APA:  Yes it is important because of things like the sign off
requirements for
government contractors.  Just like the determination of financial
responsibility for the new gTLDs, the USG needs to determine the
financial
feasibility of gov. contractors. (Ironic isn't it) Also it comes into
play
quite heavily if a competitive bidder is making objections to awarding
the
contract. The methodology of funding may seem inconsequential unless
material
representations have been made and there is a substantial deviation and
failure - such as failure to achieve representative stakeholder
consensus
because of lack of funds to conduct appropriate translation and
outreach.
This brings us to Mr. Crocker's objection,
California Non-profits;
Mr. Mancuso and Nolo would be frightened to death to see the taking of a
general rule and applying it to a non-profit government contractors,
which are
underfunded and under scrutiny by the DoC.  Nolo is a do it yourself
source
which requires primary source and or legal consultation in any matter,
read
the disclaimers if you do not believe me. As far as your previous and
current
experience, it is greatly appreciated but logically speaking unless we
know
that 501 is operating correctly it is not authoritative at all. With all
that
said and respecting your reputation I hope that you are right, but it is
still
a sticky wicket.
Which brings us to Mr. Morfin and Taxes;
We are specifically speaking of not paying taxes here. But absolutely I
want
to raise more money so that ccTLDs and non-coms pay no fees at all, and
actually get funds for contributing expertise and advice. I want the GAC
and
USG to advise and not control. I also want GA officials and staff fully
paid
and eventually At large officials and staff fully paid. I cannot find
any
source materials but I am lead to believe that ICANN has been turned
down on
requests for money because they do not have their ship properly rigged,
I
could be wrong on that as it is hearsay. Remember much of any donations
should
be tax deductible if we are running our books appropriately.

Sincerely,

p.s. this is all IMnlHO. (In My non-legal Humble Opinion)

Dave Crocker wrote:

> Sigh.  Another red herring.
>
> The IRS does not require any minimimum contribution or donation level for a
> 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
>
> The criteria related to tax-exempt status are varied and somewhat complex,
> but donations, per se, are not particularly relevant.
>
> This assessment is based on:
>
>          a) 8 years running a 501(c)(3) that charges fees; though it gets
> donations, the percentage has never been an issue; and
>
>          b) A quick review of Nolo Press' The California Nonprofit
> Corporation Handbook, by Anthony Mancuso.
>
> d/
>
> At 01:11 PM 4/21/2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >It may raise tax issues, but it doesn't raise "APA" (Administrative
> >Procedure Act) issues.  Try "IRS" - "Internal Revenue Service" ...
> >
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot find an alteration of this statement by Mr. Roberts.  If this
> > > is accurate we are not near the 51% donation funding required by our IRS
>
> > > status.  This raises serious APA issues.

Mr. Morfin,

Just a minute, you guies.
Do you mean that because of the US tax system, the ccTLDs are paying
taxes to the US Gov when they pay the iCANN, and you want to rise more
money, so the developing countries pay less US taxes?
I wander if the Digital Divide is not a Mental Divide first...
Jefsey
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html