Re: [wg-review] View from here

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Bret,
This is the most obvious scheme we should have followed. That we
did not for some complex legal reasons Kent explained well is absurd.
But it is also a blessing. Should we sometime workout a definition
of what is a domain name we will discover that you cannot "tax" many
forms of domain names.

But you certalinly can charge for an IP address. Hopefully this is
the solution for the ICANN. But whatch closely who is in charge.
Another and bigger figt to conduct. Governments will be involved,
ence the current trends. But many other will be too. Will take years
and a lot of money and huge costs to fix the errors, just because
today a few people talk about DNs when there is quite nothing
to say and do ot focus on the real problem.

Jefsey

On 04:41 10/01/01, Bret A. Fausett said:
> > Is there some way you can agree to "pay to play" at least to fund
> > the infrastructure necessary to maintain the web and list serves,
> > and a reasonable amount of scribes for documenting all of this?
>
>How about this? Domain name registries in open gTLDs accept registration
>fees from domain name registrants or registrars. ICANN takes some small
>percentage of these fees to fund its operations. Registries, registrars, and
>domain name registrants reach consensus on the amount of the money that
>ICANN can collect and the amount of money that the registries can pass on to
>their customers (registrars or registrants).
>
>         -- Bret
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html