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):
- 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.
Kaili
----- Original Message -----
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,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing
list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large
Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org