NSI Bulletin 098-008 | New Registration Agreement

Effective immediately, Network Solutions is introducing
Domain Name Registration Agreement version 4.0 that will
replace version 3.5. The new agreement reflects fee changes
for domain name registrations and renewals following the
elimination of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund portion
of the fee on April 1, 1998, pursuant to an amendment to
Network Solutions' Cooperative Agreement with the
National Science Foundation.

Registration and modification requests will be processed
using either version of the agreement (3.5 and 4.0) through
April 30, 1998, but the payment terms specified in version
4.0 will apply for registrations and re-registrations
starting April 1, 1998. Effective May 1, 1998, only version
4.0 will be accepted for registrations and modifications.
The new agreement can be found at:


The main changes are found in Section B of the agreement.
An explanation of these changes follows.

For domain names with registration or anniversary dates on
or before March 31, 1998, the fees are $100.00 U.S. and
$50.00 U.S. respectively. These fees include a 30%
Intellectual Infrastructure Fund contribution that Network
Solutions is required to collect and deposit in an account
through an agreement with the National Science Foundation.
(Re-registrations of these names, in the future, will not
include the 30% fee.)

For domain names with registration or anniversary dates on
or after April 1, 1998, the current fees are $70.00 U.S.
and $35.00 U.S. respectively. These fees do not include
the 30% Intellectual Infrastructure Fund contribution
because this requirement ends midnight, March 31, 1998
Eastern Standard Time.

Please note that the registration or anniversary date
determines the fee amount, NOT the date paid.

If you have any further questions, please call
(703) 742-4777.

Best Regards,
Network Solutions


So, is NSI going to abide by _this_ version any better than they have
with previous versions?

-- jra

So, are we going to get refunds?


That would mean that the NSF (your tax dollars) would have to pay for
doling out many, many small checks or else the fund itself would pay for
the issuing of checks thereby reducing a meagre refund to a measly refund.

I think it would be much nicer if the money were to be given to some group
that would spend it on its intended purpose. Let IAB dole it out as
research grants or some such...

Sure, with a small service fee of, say $30/domain.



The whole reason its been repealed, if I am not mistaken, is because it
is an illegal tax in the first place, but then again, I haven't heard the
court ruling yet.


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


==>The whole reason its been repealed, if I am not mistaken, is because it
==>is an illegal tax in the first place, but then again, I haven't heard the
==>court ruling yet.
==>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Michael Dillon wrote:

In article <Pine.BSI.3.93.980330130528.5497H-100000@sidhe.memra.com>,

Damn, no one reads.

_Listen up, people_.

NSI was charging $35, _plus the $15 the government told them to, by
contract_. Someone bitched, the government, _who were GETTING that
$15_, changed the instructions. NSI stopped charging the extra $15.

NSI don't owe anyone shit...

although, of course, that _is_ what we get from them. :slight_smile:

-- jra

instead of focusing on the question of NSI, versus not NSI, how about
noticing that everyone has been overcharged (actually rather more than $15,
but we'll take what we can get) and notice that the money is still around,
and then just credit it back to the users.

If that takes a transfer from the USG to NSI, big deal.

Um... the problem, Dave, is still that the word "overcharged" is
incorrect. NSI collected that money _as an agent_ of the government.

They don't have it, much less do they owe it to other people.

It's _that_ misconception which I was trying to correct.

-- jra

In article <19980330222754.39101@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>,

Actually I think Dave has positioned this extremely well. It would be
even better if it could be credited back unilaterally across all
chargable services to include not just domains, but IP space as well
where it could be applicable (ie - legacy IP space currently pointing to
the commercial .com/.net zones).


Please tell me that you're NOT holding your breath. NSI is maintaining
that a Federal judge in the lawsuit against NSI ruling that collecting the
IIF portion of the registration fee was an "illegal tax" had "absolutely
nothing" to do with the change.
And we all believe that mere coincidence, or cosmic alignment, caused the
change in fees after it was ruled illegal.

You'll also note that there's no mention of a refund of any of the fees,
although since NSI was acting as an agent in the matter and could not spend
the money it may not be their problem.

BTW: Inter@ctive Week magazine did an article this week on the WhoIs
problem at InterNIC (with contributions by yours truly). I haven't seen it
yet (not a commonly-carried magazine 'round here) but it should be good.

Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore....

Dean Robb
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]

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."


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
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]

Well, sorta.

First, note my sig and then look at the alleged name of my business in the
article. The company is PC-Easy...we provide on-site computer services.
Randy and I have exchanged several emails and he's called me at least three
times...you'd think he'd get the name right.

Second, based on the emails I gave him, the article is extremely weak. I
haven't seen the print version, perhaps it's better. But a good analogy
would be to have presented a reporter gruesome, in-depth details of a messy
murder and see the entire story be "Man killed".

Third, the information is wrong. I told Randy about the
Martianconsulate.com record, I've been tracking them since last September,
and to the best of my knowledge they've never listed their address as
anything but North Wales, PA. They did, however, use the 555-1212 phone
number. Incidently, that number was deleted from the record by NSI...which
makes the record even MORE in violation of the Registration Agreement...and
it's still an active record.

Still....it's better than no publicity at all, I suppose.

Spam: it's not just for breakfast anymore....

Dean Robb
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]

In article <19980330112641.41919@orlando.power.net> you write:

So, are we going to get refunds?

If the class action allegations are upheld in court, yes. See: