> On Jun 1, 2020, at 11:47 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Joe, > > --On Monday, June 1, 2020 10:43 -0700 Joseph Touch > <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I don't like registration fees - that's "pay per vote" >> or at least devolves to that. I should have said “membership”; registration for events is different, understandably. > ... > Now, if you were talking about registrations at the second level > and below, that would be a different matter financially, more or > less taxing ICANN from the tax it collects on TLD registries. > > More important, at least from my point of view, is the old adage > about paying the pipe. The domain name sales interests already > have far more influence over the Internet than makes me happy, > partially because they and others and done a good (if sometimes > self-interested) job of convincing much of the population that > domain names, especially TLDs, are far more important than they > probably actually are. Agreed. There are other sources - annual per-IP costs, etc. The trick - as always - is correlating the benefit to the cost. NATs undermine that for IP addresses, e.g. >> I prefer a "tax" on the Internet itself - and it >> shouldn't be just .org - to pay for these things. >> >> I.e., "if you make money from it, you pay for it". Not "if >> you want to speak on the standards", you pay. > > First, much as I have issues with the domain name sales > business, the real "making money from the Internet" business > seem to be those who sell advertising, user data, content, and > more tangible products. Why pick on name sales or TLDs. I was giving an example. Glad to hear other alternatives. > How would you prevent "if I pay for the standards (because you > make money on the Internet), I expect to have input into, and > oversight of, what the IETF does? They already do - as a side-effect of needing to have 80% support for many IETF leadership roles. > >> Other orgs get some of this by licensing the standards; we >> understandably don't want to do that. > > Most of them, fwiw, charge annual membership fees and insist on > organizational membership rather than individual participation > (even those that allow for some of the latter as, e.g., "invited > experts"). You probably don't want to go there or do that > either but it turns into another version of "pay to Play" or at > least "pay to vote”. That’s the example I started with that I do want to avoid. But ultimately, making those who create value pay to do so is backwards. Joe
