B was not an ICANN Subsidiary but some other existing entity that we could team up with so that we did not have to re-invent services that we could outsource. That being said, I am happy to eliminate it! Mechanism A always has the option of outsourcing some of the functions. BTW, under the California law that we operate under, a Public Interest Corp cannot have a "subsidiary", but that is just a nomenclature issue. Alan At 25/07/2019 01:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
Mechanism B: I presume the phrase "established at a public charity" should be "established as a public charity". I do not understand why the issue of tax benefits is being raised as in our case all of the money is coming form ICANN which does not pay any taxes. So it SOUNDS like a benefit but is in fact meaningless in our case. It should be made clear that at this point, it is not clear what parts would be outsourced and what will be kept within ICANN (except the application evaluation which must be outsourced).
I believe that this is supposed to say that ICANN establishes a captive foundation as a subsidiary.
Having done exactly that at ISOC, I can say that for the CCWG's purposes, giving away a one-time pile of money, this mechanism is inferior in every way to mechanism A. It costs more, takes longer, has a lot more bureaucratic overhead, and can do no more or no less than mechanism A. As Alan notes, it has no tax benefits. It is a waste of everyone's time to pursue it further.
If anyone has a concrete reason why they believe this would be a good idea, and is reasonably familiar with US non-profit tax law so they understand what's involved, I would like to hear about it.
R's, John
PS: ISOC's situation is quite different and it makes sense for us. If anyone wants details write me privately.