RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 2:23 PM

> > And, to put the whole thing to rest, NSI has a for-profit
> registry, and has
> > just been granted it for 4, perhaps 8 years. To limit new
> registries to
> > non-profit only would be giving NSI the only for-profit
> registry. That
> > is, to this non-lawyer, a huge antitrust violation.

> I don't agree that the NSI scenario is currently a
> "for-profit" as you put
> it.

Erhem... John,

In my universe there is only one definition of for-profit and there are no
clauses in that definition. NSI is in business to make money over and above
(as far over and above as possible) that required to recover cost of
operation. They have to pay out profits to their owners and operators. Their
annual statement proves this ... annualy. Their corporate filing explicitly
states that they are for-profit. That you disagree is patently ludicrous.

IMHO, Chris's point is valid and germane.