Fw: "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming at ameritech.net>
To: <mcade at att.com>; <lynn at icann.org>; <karl at cavebear.com>; <fausett at lextext.com>; "Richard J. Sexton" <richard at vrx.net>; "Joop
Teernstra" <terastra at terabytz.co.nz>; "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>; <plzak at arin.net>; <afnog at afnog.org>; "Joe Baptista"
<baptista at dot-god.com>
Cc: <chandley at ntia.doc.gov>; <nvictory at ntia.doc.gov>; <censslin at ntia.doc.gov>; <DEvans at doc.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget."
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade at att.com>
> "I can still see it feasible to have all secretariat services funded by ICANN's budget."
> It seems to me that you first have to get the ICANN funding and funders properly arranged.
> Some do not appear to be paying "rent" for their IPv4 32-bit address space. Some also do not
> appear to be properly accounting for these assets to their shareholders. As an example, each
> /8 allocation is worth between $1 and $2 billion dollars, based on the ability to sub-lease the
> individual IPv4 addresses at $10 per month to consumers. Those assets should appear on a
> company's balance sheet and be part of the annual report. It does not appear that AT&T does
> that for the following asset.
> 012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories Jun 95
> The above asset was apparently split between AT&T and Lucent Technologies at the time
> Lucent was formed and after that. That does not appear to be reflected in the above allocation.
> You might want to advise the manager of 0:0 .ARPA and IN-ADDR.ARPA on who actually
> owns that asset.
> With respect to leasing the asset, and funding ICANN, if one assumes the $1 per year per domain
> name fee, that would likely fund the operation with approximately $50,000,000 per year. Assuming
> that may not happen, that $50,000,000 would have to come from some other source. The management
> of the 0:0 .ARPA zone would be that source. ARIN, RIPE and APNIC already pay some token
> amounts for their allocations. If one assumes 250 of the 256 blocks can be leased, and charges the
> same for each block, then the annual fee for AT&T (and Lucent) would be $200,000. ARIN would
> of course have to pay that for each /8 they are allocated.
> In the new 128-bit DNS system, the IPv4 32-bit non-TOS=0 address space is managed in blocks
> by 8 (eight) TLD managers. That spreads the management around, and makes it more stable and
> immune from a single-point-of-corporate failure. It also makes it possible to manage allocations for
> low-cost or no-cost. That of course is not possible with the legacy 32-bit IPv4 Internet, where assets
> are controlled by a small number of companies, which have to properly account for those assets
> to their shareholders, as well as the expenses related to those assets.
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
> 0:0 .ARPA