[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


ICANN/Parties Interested in ICANN,

I ran across the attached article and associated comments so far as ICANN
and proposed $1 per domain name fee.  In reading the responses there appears
to be a lot of anger and questioning so far as both the fee and
role/authority of ICANN.  Interestingly, a lot of the blame is being
directed toward the Clinton Administration, not just ICANN.  Rightly or
wrongly the perception must be that ICANN is effectively a
creation/appendage of the U.S. federal government.

Jim Rapp
Alexandria, Virginia

Politics of Web domains get ugly

A powerful politician issues a scathing attack against the Clinton
administration's domain plan.

By Aaron Pressman, Reuters  June 22, 1999 11:15 AM PT  WASHINGTON -- The
Clinton administration's laborious efforts to privatize the Internet's
addressing system could be further slowed as the House Commerce Committee
Tuesday issued a blistering critique and opened an investigation into the

Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley said he was "greatly concerned'' that the
nonprofit corporation the administration had chosen to run the system had
exceeded its authority by deciding to impose a $1 fee on every Internet Web
site address.  In letters to Secretary of Commerce William Daley and the
head of the nonprofit group, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), the Virginia Republican said the planned fee and other
decisions went beyond what the Clinton administration had announced last
year.  "Rather than promote the Internet's evolution, your organization's
policies actually may jeopardize the continued stability of the underlying
systems that permit millions of people to use, enjoy and transact business
on the Internet,'' Bliley said in the letter to Esther Dyson, interim
chairwoman of the nonprofit corporation.

What do you think about the domain plan? Add your comments to the bottom of
this page. Talkback

Name: Kristen Skold Location: Northern California Occupation: web design
The way I read this, the $1 is going to ICANN, not the government. And if
ICANN is supposed to be non-profit, asking why they're charging a fee is a
good question. It's costing *someone* money to run ICANN, so I suppose we're
paying for it one way or another.

Name: Celtic Wizard Location: usa Occupation: citizen of the internet
It's about time someone put the brakes on the "Dyson Gang". The Internet was
moving along fine until this band of vigilante's joined together to divide
up the internet for their own gain and for the companies who sponsor them.
Everyone should beware of a collective that makes policy behind closed doors
without the consent of the governed. I believe the term use to be called
communism. Open dialogue and global voting is the only way to ensure all
voices are heard.

Name: Fred A. Goins Jr Email: fgoins@hci.net Location: Morganton, NC/
Mountain Home Idaho Occupation: Programming Analyst
This is another stupid and unfair practice by the Clinton cronies. I for one
are against this fee and will lobby to insure it doesnt come to be. As of
today I have sent my concerns to 28 congressmen and women and 14
representatives and emailed 100 of my fiends worldwide. We the people must
stop this MADNESS

Name: Thomas Catt Email: speedcat1@netscape.net Location: Long Beach
I don't know why they had to change it anyway. I thought the system as it
was, was working just fine. I have two domain names and had no problems
getting them. Why doesn't Clinton leave things alone? I can't wait until he
is out of office.

Name: Curtiss Barron Location: Illinois Occupation: Retired
Get real folks, we're only talking about $1 here.
I would be very interested in how these dollars would be used, but otherwise
it is quite the non-issue.

Name: Ron Bennett Email: rb1000@ix.netcom.com Location: Wyomissing, PA
Occupation: Website administrator

Name: Mark Location: Detroit, MI Occupation: web developer
1$ What are they thinking??
Are they actually proposing that just any netizen can pay a dollar and get a
domain name rather than ridiculous prices elsewhere? Are they actually
trying to make the net affordable for everyone? The scandal...

Mark- The $1 'tax' is in ADDITION to the registration fees, NOT in place of.
Or to put it another way a domain name that costs $70 to register today
could soon cost $72.
$72?? Yes, the $1 'tax' is DOUBLED since the initial registration is for TWO
years. ICANN doesn't mention that to the masses

Name: Jeff Tucker Location: TriCities WA Occupation: Software Engineer
MisUnderstanding here regarding the $1...I think the meaning was that the
ICANN was going to levy a $1 fee ON TOP of the price you would pay one of
the registration companies. and since they are supposed to be non-profit,
they should have a good explaination for the "fee".

Name: Gene Gower Location: Richland, WA Occupation: Web Developer
1$ a "non-issue" is pretty much why the Democrats were able to pork-barrel
the budget for 40+ years starting with FDR. The Republicans are just as
guilty, but dang it this crap is tantamount to taxation without
representation and could/would very well start another "Tea Party." What are
they going to use the "TAX" for? Election campaigning? I have just about had
enough of Washington DC politics as usual.
Name: Sean Location: Occupation:

I could live with the $1 if they would use it for child education over the
net and had a way to be liable and prove that it was used for this. More
than not it would be used to line thier pockets.

Name: Daniel Herring Location: Occupation:
$1 isn't much..until you start multiplying that by a few thousand (or
million) addresses...
My biggest question (beyond why they would do this) is whether this money
would really pay for anything other than subsidised office jobs.
Would the cost breakdown look something like this?
Fee: $1.00
Paperwork: $ .20 //recording who payed
Lawyer Fee $ .20 //to decide if its legit
Policing $ .20 //to catch those who don't pay
Overhead $ .20 //to pay management
Profit $ .20 //to board of directors
Hardware $ .00 //why should money do anything useful?

Name: Thomas Zielinski Email: tomz16@aol.com Location: Newark, NJ
Occupation: Web Developer
1$ @ 40,000 domain names per day = $14,600,000 / year
no big deal..?? right??...
wrong...! personally, i saw nothing terribly wrong with the old system, why
do the Democrats have to "save" us from the horrible "working" system.?
Clearly, if it isn't broken, meddle with it, so that you break it, and then
proceed to blame it on Gun Control... (The Democrat way)
If you ask me, gov. is the last thing i want messing with my domain
registrations.. Case and point : "When's the last time Clinton's been down
to his local DMV?" if it takes as long to register a domain as it does a
car, the internet is going nowhere in a hurry...

Name: Mike West Location: NA Occupation: IS/IT Supervisor
TAX?!? NO!!! It is only a tax if it is levied by a government agency. This
is a user fee. It's not necessary, and if ICANN is really not for profit,
then they should not be adding the fee. What happened to their budget
projections? They should collect enough on current registration fees to
cover the $6 Mil budget without tacking on an additional fee. Either they
couldn't add the first time, or they can't add now. At least someone in
Congress is keeping an eye on this monstrocity.

Name: Ralph F. Mariano Location: USA Occupation: News Editor
This is more of the typical Gov't BS of interfering in matters where they
have little or no expertise. Internic does a fine job. Why try to fix what
is NOT broken!

Name: E. Nilsen Location: Occupation:
The hardest thing is to get the "we, the people"
to swallow a new tax. After that, they can do as
they pretty much please. Fair warning !!!
This is another fine example of "big brother"
rendering its well-thought-out guidance which we
don't need. If Washington is behind it, and
ultimately they are, that immediately rouses my
suspicions. There are a number of people there
who are there looking out for us, but unfortunately their numbers are small
compared to
the others who are only there to serve themselves.
Case in point; Did "we, the people" have any say
in the senate and congress giving themselves a
$33K per year raise back in the mid-80's ? When was that? 1986? 1987?
I know many people who don't even EARN that much
in 1 1/2 to 2 years. And they give THEMSELVES this raise.
If I want a raise, I have to go to my boss and pracically beg and plead,
only to be given a 25 cent or 50 cent raise, and that's if he's in a good
Be wary of this $1 "tax". It may seem like a small amount now, but it's
probably only the beginning. They're not done with this yet, so let's all
bend over and grease up.

Name: Sue Tilzer Email: suetilzer@prodigy.net Location: Occupation:
People are saying that $1 is no big thing. That's not the issue. The issue
is that it's one more thing that the government is, in a sense, trying to
sneak in. If people don't start to complain, what's next?

Name: Teknician Email: ckdz@fastmail.ca Location: Canada Occupation:
Hardware Teknician
That's what it is. Pretty soon, everybody will want their own way of doing
things and the Internet as we know it will be history. It'll be gone, gone
for good.

Name: RAVF Location: Canada Occupation: Historian / VAR
Non Profit doesn't mean no-income. Even a non-profit organization needs to
generate revenue to pay for its overheads. So long as it ends the fiscal
year without a profit it is non-profit. If it is registered with a
recognized government as a charity or NPO or NP-NGO then it is Non-profit.
However, if the gvt funds it, one way or another taxpayers will pay. I'd
have thought the $1 user fee is fairer than sapping from the US tax
base...but I'm not American so what do I care how you want to fund this

Name: Matt McOsker Email: mcwop@home.com Location: Maryland Occupation:
Is this a $1 fee to register an address through ICANN or is it a fee (aka
tax) on any adresses registered by the private companies ICANN oversees? The
article seems a little unclear to me

Name: Lloyd Manley Email: lloyd3@bellsouth.net Location: atlanta Occupation:
AOL will be offering domains? Isn't that a manifest conflict of interest? I
thought only non-profit companies were going to be allowed to do this? If
for profit companies are allowed to give out domain names then it may end up
being just as bad as leaving it under govt control.