Vint,
the ASO members don't support ICANN on a per block basis, in fact ICANN's
Task Force on Funding (TFF) observed that the IP Address Registries
operate on a non-profit business model from member fees and should foot
10% of ICANN's budget. (see
http://www.icann.org/tff/final-report-draft-30oct99.htm)
If ICANN's budget grows the ASO's responsibility grows proportionally. If
the IP Address Registries (ASO Members) are doing cost-recovery then its
expected the price for membership will increase or the cost for a
delegation will increase. It is reasonable to assume that an address
maintance fee will eventually passed along to the consumer just to
maintain the 10% ICANN maintance.
I don't want to see IP Address space charges, no matter its version,
induce a monthly charges on the end-user side. Just this year the ASO's
10% responsibility will amount to $428,000 USD. If you don't think that
ICANN's budget will grow under stand tha ARIN's 2000-01 budget is 5.2M and
ICANN's budget for 2000-01 is 5.0M
If you want to keep ICANN out of your pocket, ensure they stay lean and
focused on technical administration of Assigned Names and Numbers and not
inflating its own self worth.
I would prefer having ICANN set the ASO funding requirements in such a way
that it did not encourage ASO members to pass on the ICANN maintance fees
in a per assignment basis. In short Manageing ICANN's budget can have the
largest impact on the costs of future IP Address Registry operations.
I'd be happy to carry this conversation on in another forum, just let me
know where that is.
thanks,
-rick
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, vinton g. cerf wrote:
It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances
will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a
one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built
into
the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address
into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it
end-to-end unique)?