[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Sat Jul 14 13:04:47 UTC 2018
My dear Kaili,
I hope you are well and I want to comment on your email, but starting
with your first sentence
<<In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator>>
I already see a lot of alternative paths here:
#1 most usage of the word regulator in our circles are about "content
regulation". And it is the standard answer that ICANN is NO content
#2 a standar usage of the "regulator" role is realted to case where
private service providers of public goods have different interstes than
the final users of those goods and/or services. The funny thing here is
that ICANN does assign public goods, but to operational entities, that
may have or not different purpose that the users of those goods. So the
question arises who regulates the Registrars and Registries (Rr/Ry) -
Registrant interface. This is the classic case of the privacy issue that
has taken us here. But the contracts (that indirectly regulate WHOIS
privacy) are not between the users and the Registrars and Registries. In
this case are bilateral contracts, folllowing bottom-up multistakeholder
policy, but in the end, factually negotiated without the participation
of the final user ( so much for the model).
#3 I don't share the view, last expressed by Seun, that the $ 185k and
auction fees are "regulatory" fees. Those are the so called costs of the
expansion.Only the $ 0.25/year per registered domain name should be
considered under the cowt of regulation. The former are just windfall
profits for the manager of the expansion.......which by the way operates
under a non-for-profit framework.
So, before we loose track of Carlton's inital question, we have to
narrow down the expecation of the regulator in ICANN. Otherwise we will
Best friendly regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
carlosraul at gutierrez.se
+506 8837 7176
El 2018-07-12 19:56, Kan Kaili escribió:
> 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):
> * Application Processing Fees  for licenses, equipment approvals, antenna registrations, tariff filings, formal complaints (not ordinary complaints), and other authorizations and regulatory actions.
> * Annual Regulatory Fees  collected from specific categories of regulated entities in the mass media, common carrier, wireless, international and cable television services.
> * Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees  for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
> * Auction Payments  for upfront payments, down payments, and subsequent payments for licenses that the FCC auctions.
> * 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
> Dear Christian,
> 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.
> Kindest regards,
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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