Actually, no.  The US$6.00 goes directly to Verisign.

ICANN charges a per name fee that slides towards zero based on the volume
of registrations under management for the registrar in question.  For any
medium-large registrar this fee is so close to zero (ie a few cents per
name) as to be relatively insignificant.

Nor is this $6 fee set by ICANN.  Verisign can vary it within certain restrictions.
 You will note that the other new TLD registries have set their registry
charges slightly below Verisign's $6 figure.

rgds
jon


>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
>From: "Dassa" <dassa&#167;dhs.org>
>To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:52:56 +1000
>Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au
>
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Jon Lawrence [mailto:jon&#167;jonlawrence.com] 
>|> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 12:25 AM
>|> To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
>|> Subject: RE: [DNS] RE: auDA to consider new names for .au
>|> 
>|> 
>|> >You were equating the need for charging (higher) fees with the
>provison
>|> >of a professional service, as evidence in the past and present, this
>|> >does not hold true and the level of fees charged has no bearing on
>the
>|> >service provided in most cases.
>|> 
>|> No I wasn't.  I simply said that I think the DNS should berun
>professionally.
>|> You assume that I think fees should rise, which I don't.  
>|> For instance I think the US$6 per name per year that Verisign
>Registry 
>|> charge for .coms is way too high, especially as they have almost 30
>million 
>|> names under management.
><snip>
>
>One thing we should bear in mind is the difference between AuDA and
>Registries/Registrars operating within the .au namespace.  AuDA is
>primarily concerned with the overall management of the namespace and the
>fees they charge are to be used for different purposes to those charged
>by Registries/Registrars operating within the namespace.
>
>The $6USD fee you quote above is set by ICANN and is delivered into
>their control, much like the $11AuD quoted to go towards AuDA.  When you
>purchase a second level domain under .com $6USD goes to ICANN and the
>rest of the registration fee goes to the Registry/Registrar.  Once you
>have a second level domain name you can create all the sub-domains you
>wish at no further cost other than bandwidth and infrastructure.
>
>What I propose is that AuDA set some restrictions on how geographical
>domains may be handled.  So that there is price fixing at the sub-domain
>level and a standard practice on how they are managed and registered.
>The whole process can be under control to the consumer level.
>
>To expand:
>
>AuDA releases states.au.
>The Registry for each state.au allows registrations of towns.state.au
>under specific conditions and the body who has the registration for
>town.state.au becomes a Registry for that domain and allows
>registrations under it within specific conditions.  We then have
>individuals.town.state.au, businesses.town.state.au,
>co-operatives.town.state.au, non-profit.town.state.au registrations.
>There would need to be uniformity in how such consumer registrations are
>formulated, for instance individual registrations may be allowed in the
>form FirstName.Initial.LastName.town.state.au, with businesses etc
>handled by trading name etc.  There would be duplication at the hostname
>level across a number of town.state.au domains but the actual domain
>would be the identifier and provide for unique hostnames across the
>nation.
>
>AuDA could take a slice of the states.au and towns.states.au
>registrations.  At the consumer level, the Registry handling the
>namespace would be the only body to benefit from any fee, which should
>be set at something like the $5 mark.
>
>The Registries for the towns.states.au domains could be anyone who
>wishes to provide the service, providing they agree to the conditions
>attached to the operation of the Registry including the price fixing.
>There would need to be a complaints handling process and protection of
>all namespaces with fall back provisions in the event any Registry goes
>down.
>
>The above is a simplified version but I'm sure you can get the gist of
>the idea.  It is not new.
>
>The main points are:
>
>- Registries to be run under strict conditions
>- Anyone can apply to act as a Registry for any town providing they
>agree to meet the conditions
>- Complaints handling to ensure conditions are met
>- Fall back provided so consumers are not disadvantaged by Registry
>failure
>- Consistant formats for hostnames across all geographically based
>domains
>- Fixed low pricing at the consumer level.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (309 subscribers.)
>