Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12/07/2014 00:27, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>> Good points. But I should be clearer.
>>
>> I was thinking of IANA as the contracted registry operator for those
>> IANA considerations in RFCs.
>> There is a cost to operating this which IETF as far as I am aware is not
>> paying for.
>>
>> Who is paying?
> It doesn't matter, unless one side or the other gives notice to cancel the
> IETF/ICANN MOU.
>
> >From a fairness PoV, domain name holders benefit from the existence
> and viability of IETF protocols - without those protocols, there
> would be no Internet traffic. So it's entirely reasonable that
> the cost of the protocol registries is in practice a levy on domain
> name holders. User pays.
>
>   
More than that.. by designating ICANN to perform the IANA functions, 
IETF is essentially granting ICANN an exclusive license to charge for 
those functions.  I.e., IETF may not be paying, but they are providing 
something to ICANN for which ICANN can charge a fee.  (Not that 
different from a franchise agreement.  McDonald's doesn't pay its 
franchisees, the franchisees pay them.)

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra