[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

[Elisabeth Blanconil]

Thank you Conrad for this informed response. It is interesting for me 
in order to document what different are the different VGN 
configuration costs and revenues.

At 14:05 26/02/2014, David Conrad wrote:
>Michel,
>
>On Feb 26, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> > You know the rule: if ICANN works for free for me, I am the 
> product. Why would I be your product?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_nonprofit_corporation

You have to know that Califiornian "main-morte" corporations are 
illegal in France and other countries where they are assimilated 
(French Revolution) to robbers bands.

> > If you do not sell me, if you do not sell to me, it means we are 
> in competition somewhere. Economy is made that way.
>
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt 
>of in your philosophy."
>   - Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

To accept Hamlet philosophy or not accept Hamlet philosophy is not my 
accountant cup of tea. Sorry. I need a clear model to explain the 
various configuration of open, protected, closed VGNs.

> > Where does ICANN get its money from?.
>
>https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy13-01may12-en.pdf, 
>section 3.

Registry: $37,406,000
Registrar $35,856,000
RIR $823,000
ccTLD $2,000,000
IDN ccTLD $0
Meeting Sponsorships $800,000
New gTLD Registry/Registrar $1,985,000
Revenue $78,870,000

This means that they have the same budget as us: $ 0 from internet users.


> > But ICANN claims it is important to all of us because it runs the RSS.
>
>ICANN does not claim to run the root server system. ICANN operates 
>the "L" root server. ICANN also provides a venue for root server 
>operators to discuss topics relevant to root server operations and 
>ICANN (RSSAC), but that advisory committee does not "run the RSS" 
>(to put it mildly).

OK. Michel was mistaken.
ICANN is not mistaken I suppose when it says that its missions are:

(1) the coordination of the assignment of technical protocol 
parameters including the management of the address and routing 
parameter area (ARPA) top-level domain;

* technical protocols are discussed by IETF. The most demanding part 
of the VGNIC I expect is to consolidate an I*Book from RFCs for VGN 
IUser to get informed about the technology they use in a practical 
form. ICANN does not carry that type of work as far as I understand.

* ARPA zone file: http://www.internic.net/zones/arpa.zone. How many 
people should we allocate to that task on your opinion?

(2) the administration of certain responsibilities associated with 
Internet DNS root zone management such as generic (gTLD) and country 
code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domains;
* decision by the NTIA
* As far as we are concerned we will only document what people will 
tell us they need to know. Since we do not claim to be authoritative, 
that work should be carried by EZOP and tools like libbint, etc. we 
want to see integrated in netix for them to be independent from the OS.

(3) the allocation of Internet numbering resources; and
* this is the Internet equivalent to X.121 and E.164: how many people 
are dedicated to that task at ICANN and ITU? On your opinion how many 
should we consider for the VGNIC?

(4) other services.
ICANN performs the IANA functions under a U.S. Government contract.
* I do not see USG originated revenue for this contract.
* would ICANN accept a similar contract from other Governments either 
in the ICANN/NTIA class or in other classes? Or would rather see us 
assuming such contracts?

> > Bill documented that a root-server costs only $ 200.
>
>You conveniently omit Bill's comments regarding opex (operational 
>expenses) and I believe Bill was talking about a single instance 
>intended to be what's considered a "local root server instance" 
>suitable for a limited set of queriers and does not take into 
>account the costs of connectivity, cooling, power, administration, 
>etc. Such instances are not expected to receive significant queries 
>and are thus quite inexpensive (although I personally would argue 
>that $200 is too low).

Bill was correcting JFC's evaluation of $ 1000 for a local server 
instance in an existing computer room by an African operator, or a 
FLOSS non-profit having local cooperation.

>As I mentioned in a previous response, if you wish to provide a root 
>server capable of responding to global queries and do it well (that 
>is, professionally), you're going to have to spend a lot of money 
>(on the order of US $millions/year).  How much depends on a number 
>of variables, of which hardware cost is among the less significant. 
>Bandwidth and co-lo costs are likely to be the major expenditures.

I am not sure ORSN people can foot that kind of bill?

> >> In ICANN's own constellation, the L-root, pretty much anyone who 
> signs up to participate is welcome to do so.
> > Perfect. And I suppose they do not pay you and you do not pay them?
>
>Yep. Shocking as it might be, some folks actually do things without 
>getting paid.

Well, you know many folks spending $millions/year that way. If they 
are the US Army or the NASA, I suppose they are getting paid by the 
tax-payers. Even non-connected ones.
Our target is obviously to reduce that cost. In particular bandwidth 
and co-lo costs in hosting that information on the users' machine or 
at their local resolution service.

> > But why would ICANN pick NTIA's calls in the first place?
>ICANN answers many, many calls. Really.

No doubt. Question is how much each of them is productive for the 
users. How does ORSN?
Which ones should VGNICS also carry to relieve the common burden and 
address the real user's needs?
What would be of interest would be a break down of the origins of the 
receive phone-calls. IRT the NTIA several staff members claimed in 
the past to have daily phone calls with them.

Hebe