Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement

  • From: Dean Robb
  • Date: Wed Apr 01 01:39:26 1998

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]





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.