Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Partitioning of interests

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

this is not correct.

icann receives approx 15-18 cents per domain name which
is a fee which is assessed to the registrars based on registration volumes.

if one were inclined to try to avert any financial responsibility, one could
argue that this fee was a pass-thru (but the materiality of the amount makes
the argument rather innocous) but one can also argue that portions of
connection fees paid to ISP's, or portions of the cost of Cisco routers were
also pass-thru items as well.

frankly, i am getting a bit tired of this blanket "avoidance" of financial
responsibility by some parties (no slur intended at bret here !!) . it would
seem that some reasonable membership charge could be imposed for all
members-at large.

ken stubbs





----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce James" <bmjames@swbell.net>
To: "Michael Sondow" <msondow@iciiu.org>; "DNSO Review List"
<wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Partitioning of interests


> A study is to be done on the @Large Directors of ICANN.
>
> See:  http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#II
>
> I hope the @Large Directors are expanded.  As far as the DNSO, I hope they
> will participate in developing domain name policy with the DNSO.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Sondow" <msondow@iciiu.org>
> To: "DNSO Review List" <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Bruce James" <bmjames@swbell.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Partitioning of interests
>
>
> Bruce James wrote:
> >
> > I refer you to this link:
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/at-large/at-large.htm
>
> I find no reference at all to the DNSO at that page. Nor have I ever
> heard a suggestion that the @large will participate in developing
> domain name policy with the DNSO. I think you and Peter de Blanc are
> a little confused. In point of fact, the @large membership has no
> brief to initiate policy in ICANN, and will probably cease to exist
> as soon as the Board's "At-large Review Committee" has finished its
> machiavellian chores.
>
> M.S.
>
>
>
>