[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [bwg+] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting Rights

[Karl Auerbach]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> I disagree: fees for organizations that are non-commercial should be
> waived on principle.  ICANN should not charge the NCC at all.

What I find intriguing is this:  ICANN is an organization that receives
several special benefits from the United States and the State of
California - primarily exemption from certain taxes.  In order to do that,
ICANN must jump though several hoops and adhere to a rather stringent set
of restrictions.

And here is a body, a body deep down inside ICANN, a body that is almost
litterally out of sight and out of mind of the group who is actually
responsible for ICANN's acts, the Board of Directors.  And this body is
making decisions how much to charge for people and entities to participate
as voting members in this tax exempt organization.  And the practical
effect of these decision is that only commercial entities are allowed 
entry into the policy-making part of the DNSO.

My sense is that ICANN, a non-commercial, non-profit, public-benefit,
tax-exempt body itself, ought not to be creating situations where the only
members of ICANN are its own opposite - groups and entities that are
commercial, for-profit, and private-benefit.

ICANN can not tolerate any internal activities that would place at risk 
its status under the US tax codes.  I am very concerned about policies 
adopted by organs of ICANN, and the DNSO is such an organ, that have the 
practical effect of transforming ICANN into nothing more than an arm of 
certain business sectors.

		--karl--