Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- To: rmeyer at mhsc.com (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
- Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- From: Carl Malamud <carl at also.media.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: brian at hursley.ibm.com, mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp, mueller at syr.edu, vcerf at mci.net, discussion-draft at giaw.org, ietf at ietf.org, comments at iana.org, Iana at iana.org, List at giaw.org
- Delivery-date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:24:03 -0400
- In-reply-to: <199807131448.HAA07683@condor.mhsc.com> from "Roeland M.J. Meyer" at Jul 13, 98 07:48:49 am
- Organization: Internet Multicasting Service
> Whoops! I am in California as I write this. Just think of why 80% of US
> corps are Delaware corps. Even Netscape is a Delaware corp. Sacramento
> flies the "Jolly Roger", right under the bear. Even if you operate here,
> you DON'T want to incorporate here. It costs almost four times as much.
> (and I hope the California Department of Commerce reads this).
Not true. The IANA would be a nonprofit corporation and there are
no significant advantages to Delaware over California in the case of
a tax-exempt corporation with no shareholders. There are minor
differences in incorporation fees and the like, but over the long haul
it doesn't matter.
Carl
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
