|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement
At 15:08 3/30/98 -0800, you wrote: >On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Deepak Jain wrote: > >NSI contends that the court has not found it to be an illegal tax yet, and >that they (the courts) simply have issued an injunction to stop NSI from >collecting it. This statement was in a reply to me when I inquired about >the domain fee for domains registered prior to 4/1/98; apparently, those >domains will still be $50 per year. It will be interesting to see how >that extra $15 will be accounted for--since it can no longer go into the >infrastructure fund (via court ruling), where will it go? > >(I had also heard that the final ruling was that it indeed was an illegal >tax...) There is no "final ruling", just an opinion and temporary injunction. NSI is technically correct, however: "C. Conclusion Therefore, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have a substantial likelihood of eventual success on the merits of these claims. They have made a significant showing that the Preservation Assessment is an illegal tax. Furthermore, they have shown that Congress has not yet ratified that assessment. Therefore, plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that defendants may have collected, and may currently be collecting, the assessment illegally." ----"Memorandum of Opinion" issued in conjuction with Temporary Injunction; full text at http://WWW.bode.com/nsi/jh1.html. It should also be noted on this issue, though that: "In contrast, defendants face no harm whatsoever. Defendant NSI is merely the caretaker for the Preservation Assessment Fund, therefore, it has no interest in what happens to the money. Defendant NSF also has no tangible interest in the money; it may only spend the funds at the direction of Congress, for purposes specified by Congress. Therefore, NSF is not harmed by a delay in the expenditure of these funds." ---ibid I'm not known to be a big fan of NSI, but on this issue, it's not THEIR money. Therefore, they should not be liable for refunds. They just collected the bucks and held it in trust; even the interest earned went back into the funds. Of course, it's not like NSI NEEDS the money, they made net profit of over $45 million in 1997 (http://www.netsol.com/news/pr_19980210.html). Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore.... Dean Robb PC-Easy On-site computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279] |