[ICANN-EU] The ICANN Pyramid

["JIM FLEMING" <jfleming@anet.com>]

Funding ?
Check the cash reserves here...
http://www.arin.net/members/budget.html

Keep in mind, it is an MLM - Multi-Level-Marketing "pyramid"

@@@@ http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99mar/44th-99mar-ietf-46.html

"Scott Bradner: ICANN grew out of the Green Paper and White Paper and its
charter is be the top of the pyramid...."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://www.arin.net/images/icann3.gif


Jim Fleming
http://Register.WEB.com



----- Original Message -----
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. <rod@CYBERSPACES.ORG>
To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: The GAC- ICANN the shell game!


> Moving fast is exactly correct. I guess there may be multiple reasons why
> this funding issue is kept below the radar. I see there has been on-going
> plans on the "Internet tax." I think it is troubling to see very little
open
> debate  on an issue as critical as how ICANN ought to be funded. The
notion
> that the basic funding "needs" of ICANN be supported by IP address
> registries and domain name registries and registrars may make sense, but I
> would hate to see this "tax" be implemented by fiat. Since these costs
will
> likely be shifted on to domain name holders and other members of the
> Internet community, this issue ought to be subject to deliberations by
more
> than just a select task force.
>
> Rod
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
> To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:27 AM
> Subject: Re: The GAC- ICANN the shell game!
>
>
> > Jim and all,
> >
> >   Exactly Jim!  ANd this has been our contention with respect to ICANN
> > almost from day one.  The only difference as time and events have
> > unfolded is that the game is moving faster and a new shell or two have
> > been added.  Other than that, the game remains the same....
> >
> > JIM FLEMING wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion, it is a little more complicated.
> > > You have to watch the ICANN sleight-of-hand.
> > > It is like the old shell game with the ball and 4 or 5
> > > pairs of hands, all moving quickly but most doing
> > > nothing....in my opinion, the real answer is that there
> > > will no longer be such a thing as a ccTLD and the
> > > GAC will be paid lip-service and discover they
> > > control the worthless TLDs (those with no $$$ value)
> > >
> > > The key is to follow the ball...(i.e. the money)
> > > http://www.icann.org/financials/staff-paper-cost-recovery-10nov00.htm
> > >
> > > The proposed classes are:
> > > Class 1 - Commercial. (Either the registry, or the registrar, or both,
> are
> > > operated as for-profit entities.) Registrant categories are as
follows.
> > > 1a - Worldwide availability, unrestricted as to registrants. E.g.,
.com,
> > > .nu, .tv, .cc
> > > 1b - Worldwide availability, restricted as to registrants. E.g.,
> possible
> > > new TLDs such as .air.
> > > 1c - Restricted to country or territorial presence of registrant,
E.g.,
> .au,
> > > .ca
> > > Class 2 - Noncommercial. (Both the registry and the registration
> activities
> > > are operated on a non-profit or not-for-profit, cost recovery basis.)
> > > 2a - Worldwide availability, unrestricted as to registrants. E.g.,
> possible
> > > new TLDs such as .health
> > > 2b - Worldwide availability, restricted as to registrants. E.g., .int,
> > > .union
> > > 2c - Restricted to country or territorial presence of registrant.
> > > Class 3 - Special Purpose. For registries with no cost recovery
> structure,
> > > or qualifying under other criteria such as demonstrated financial
> hardship.
> > > Currently is set at $500 per year.
> > >
> > > @@@@@
> > >
> > > Jim Fleming
> > > http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> > > http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> > > http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@MAIL.MSEN.COM>
> > > To: <DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: The GAC
> > >
> > > >         I just want to make sure I haven't missed anything.  So far
as
> I
> > > > can tell, this is the first statement from ICANN that we've gotten
> > > > indicating that ICANN intends to adopt the GAC principles (under
which
> > > > governments essentially get control of their associated ccTLDs) in
> toto.
> > > > The Board had left the matter open in Cairo, and I don't recall
their
> > > > revisiting it in Yokohama.  Is that right?
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > http://www.icann.org/cctlds/draft-letter-to-govts-12nov00.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > " One step that must be accomplished before ICANN can complete its
> > > > > assumption of these responsibilities is the entry of stable and
> > > > > appropriate contracts between ICANN and ccTLD managers. ICANN
wishes
> to
> > > > > complete these contracts as soon as possible. These contracts will
> > > > > facilitate implementing the ICANN Governmental Advisory
Committee's
> > > > > "Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs", 23
> February
> > > > > 2000, which is posted
> > > > > at: <http://www.icann.org/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm>"
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone please explain to me when the GAC became an organ
> > > > > within ICANN?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Weinberg
> > > > weinberg@msen.com
> > > >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
>