Re: Fees

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave,

  Please read below your comments.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 2:13 PM -0800 12/26/96, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >Seems like a good use of some of that 30% being witheld by NSI.
> 
>         Why should folks interested in starting a commercial venture for
> name administration be subsidized?  Our model is to have future efforts be
> self-funding.  That requires charging applicants to cover the costs of the
> review and allocation process.  Looking for subsidies elsewhere merely
> perpetuates the "daddy pays" model that should have been eliminated when
> the Internet moved from research into commercial production, roughly 6
> years ago.

  I don't wholy agree with your "daddy pays" characterazation here Dave.
I do agree that some of the of the funding should be derived from fees.
That said however, I do not see any reason why "Fund drives" for 
additional specilized useses cannot be considered, part of which could
be used to reduce fees(TAX).  This is and adaptation of what you
characterize as "Daddy pays" model.  If so, so be it.  I think this
type of characterazation is, or would be viewed, with questionable
validity anyway. 
> 
>         Whether one likes or dislikes the particulars of NSF's activities
> in this regard, they very much ARE trying to move towards full
> privatization and commercial self-funding.  The IAHC proposal is consistent
> with goal.  Seeking cross-subsidization -- even from NSI -- would not be.

  I find your last sentance unrealistic in todays world and with your
drafts desire to serve the "Public".  Except however for the NSI part,
of course.

  Oh, shouldn't you previous sentance say, "The IAHC perposal is
consistant
with THIS goal".  :)

Regards,


-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com