Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[Eric Brunner-Williams <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/14 2:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> ...
> Assuming that your calculations are correct (I suspect they are
> close enough for analysis purposes).   The "17 cents per..."
> style of analysis seems to me to be useful in only two sets or
> scenarios:

My point John is merely that this function, for which the US Government 
takes some present interest, through both the Executive and Legislative 
branches, is presently implemented through a no-cost contract. Were 
Government to return to the prior contractual form, this particular 
item, when amortized across some nominal broad notion of users (Elliot, 
and Brian, have been making a user-pays argument, where user appears to 
be defined as domain registrants, privatization presumed, though a "user 
pays" claim for protocol parameters, generally, is rather narrow if 
limited to domain registrants, and has the effect of privileging a 
former monopoly retaining market power, and its sales channels, and 
trademark holders, with more access to policy making than other, larger 
definitions of "user"), has a "cost" that is rather small.

>
> (1) To claim that IANA is a public good that should be paid out
> of the public coffers without worrying too much about the
> amounts involved.

Before looking to whether or not the IANA is a "public good", it is a 
public function, authorized by legislation which in turn is interpreted 
and implemented by an agency of government.

>    If one makes that argument, one must, I
> think, be prepared to argue

Nope. See above.

> that IANA is more important (in
> terms of priority access to the public coffers) than other
> public goods, such a preventing starvation, educating small
> children, sundry emergency services such as police and fire
> departments, etc.  I'm disinclined to go there; YMMD.
> (2) If one has taxing authority with regard to the sources whose
> resource impact is being measured and intends to use it.  ICANN
> clearly does not have that authority (independent of whether it
> can assess fees on entities who do business with it, a different
> matter) and a further separation of ICANN from the US Government
> also further separates it from anyone with such authority.
> Even if ICANN's (or IANA's) ties to the government were closer,
> I don't think additional (or new) taxes, especially on
> "Community Anchor Institutions" who are mostly nonprofit and
> tax-exempt would have much chance in today's legislative
> environment in the US.
$7.2bn/$4.7bn. The BTOP. And the $0.17/yr salami slice can be taken 
before it is distributed to the subscriber CAIs.
> All of that is obvious independent of the question of whether,
> if IANA is going to be treated as a public good or the
> equivalent thereof (as several of the discussion threads on this
> list effectively suggest even if they don't use those words) ...
The IANA function benefits the public. However, that isn't the issue.

Eric