[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
kankaili at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 17:56:57 UTC 2018
In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. As a matter of fact, when ICANN's functions were executed by the US Gov., or when these functions were mandated to ICANN by the US Gov., all these functions were indeed the role of a regulator. Unfortunately, during the transaction, much of the attention was focused on accountability, transparancy, etc., while the true nature of ICANN's function was overlooked. That is, ICANN forgot what it is doing and what it is.
Thus, if we restore ICANN's nature as playing the role of a regulator, the fees collected are naturally "regulatory fees", just the same as FCC of the US collects its fees. In the case of the FCC, these fees include the following (https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees):
a.. Application Processing Fees for licenses, equipment approvals, antenna registrations, tariff filings, formal complaints (not ordinary complaints), and other authorizations and regulatory actions.
b.. Annual Regulatory Fees collected from specific categories of regulated entities in the mass media, common carrier, wireless, international and cable television services.
c.. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
d.. Auction Payments for upfront payments, down payments, and subsequent payments for licenses that the FCC auctions.
e.. Forfeitures are penalties that the FCC may assess for violations of law or noncompliance with authorizations.
For example, the fees paid by a long-distance service provider are $0.00302 per dollar of its revenue. As long as FCC is non-profit, this has nothing to do with the cost of regulating this particular service provider.
Therefore, as inherited from the US Government, ICANN has the full credentials for collecting these regulatory fees, or taxes, from the entities it regulates, i.e., the registries and registrars.
----- Original Message -----
From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
To: Christian de Larrinaga ; bzs at theworld.com
Cc: LACRALO discussion list ; ICANN At-Large list
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost
recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN
does not have the credentials.
IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD?
The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.
What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs? I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP, if that has not already been discussed.
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large