ICANN just published its annual report (pdf), including its financial’s for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.
ICANN finished its fiscal year with $64 Million in assets, including $17 million in cash, investments of over $45 million or a total of $63 million.
For the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2009, ICANN had $27 million in cash but only $30 Million in investments or just $57 Million.
Expenses were also up in 2010 to over $58 Million dollars from just $51 million in 2009.
ICANN gained over $4 million from investments in 2010 after losing over $2 million in 2009.
Unrestricted net assets rose to $64 Million at the end of fiscal 2010 from just $53 million at the beginning of fiscal 2010.
You can see the entire report here including the salaries and compensation of all officers of ICANN.
I bet they will end up with even more next year (no matter how much they try to waste it) if they jack up prices again.
To be honest, I expected ICANN to be making much more. Millions of domains are registered every year and still the ICANN’s profit doesn’t seem like much.
They should look into increase the $0.18 ICANN fee to something along the $0.50 limit. Or may I wrong here?
Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
“$11.25 per IP address” places /8 value at $188,743,680 which is LOW
ISPs Lease ONE IP Address for $10 per month ~ a /8 is likely worth $1,887,436,800
“including the salaries and compensation of all officers of ICANN”
===================
including the salaries and compensation of SOME* officers of ICANN
SOME* carefully selected compensations carved up to look small at a glance?
What about all the very well-compensated clerks on the 1099 ?
$400,000 ?
“They Close The Year With $64 Million In Net Assets”
===
Apparently, more people have resigned, but nothing is said ?
It must be difficult sitting around watching the paint dry all day.
It looks like they are out of fabricated road-blocks at this stage.
IPv6 will of course be reported as a massive achievement.
People have reported how few “leaks” come from ICANN. One
hypothesis is that lawyer-based places are like that. Another more
likely reason is that very little happens there. Many people apparently
work from home, watching The.View.
{{ YES }} Some prefer to put their heads in the Florida sand…
and some will be impressed with that Corporate Report “Package”
Line up with your $185,000 soon – Real Soon
ISPs Lease ONE IP Address for $10 per month ~ a /8 is likely worth $1,887,436,800
Where is the value and sale of /8s shown in the ICANN Annual Report ?
Domainers Headed to Puerto “RICO” for Some of the ICANN new TLD Strategy Juice
://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN-XXVII/attendees.html
when bloggers and other website publishers write about the issue of ipv4 addresses, e.g., that they are “running out”, they will often write something like “ip addresses cannot be sold. you can’t *own* an ip address.”
as is true with phone numbers, the numbers are “rented” or “leased” to you by some organisation, not sold. in the case of phone numbers, the telephone company is the organisation.
so, what about the shady organisations overseeing ip addresses? are they the equivalent of the telehone company? not quite. unlike the telco, they don’t own the wires; they don’t own network or any part of it.
that hasn’t stopped them from charging ongoing fees for these ip addresses (or waiving them at their sole discretion), and following the usual scheme, they’re “non-profit”. in other words, they don’t share their earnings with shareholders, they staff keep it to themselves.
no one “owns” these numbers. not the registry and not the users. numbers are not tangible property nor are they intellectual property. the property at issue is the physical network.
ip is popular but it’s not the only numbering scheme that works in a huge network. ethernet has stood the test of time, too. there are far more mac addresses and derived uuid’s (like the ones used on every windows pc) than ip addresses. these are also “sold”, but at least the ieee isn’t claiming there’s a limited supply.
maybe we should start using ip numbering only on internal networks and use mac on the internet(*).
voila, no more shortage.
the property interest is in the physical network, not the numbering scheme.
but then microsoft has so much cash, they’d put down several million for air if they thought it might give them a competitive advantage.
(*) which is, in a way, what ipv6 does: it utilises the mac address.
how much do oui’s cost? no shortage of those. and without the use of them, there would be no “ipv6”.
funny that on the network segment where collisions are in fact permitted (ethernet), the node numbering scheme is doing just fine. it’s only on the heavily commercialised internet that we see this nonsense with ip addresses.
buying several million ip addresses does not raise an eyebrow. no one seems to ask “why do they need all those addresses?” how will they use them?
http://www.networkworld.com/community/print/72498
but if you buy a few thousand domain names, it tends to draw people’s attention.
the simple fact is that if each internet user had their own dedicated ip address, then each and every user could *directly* connect with each other, without using a centralised “middle man” (=third party server), like skype for example. it could might eliminate the need for centralised dns as well. scary, eh? the techniques to do this are *simple* and are in fact documented (and even work on windows), they are just not widely used.
but there’s no point in even thinking of it. few users have their own ip – most are sitting behind a nat device. users think every thing begins and ends with a web browser. and ip’s are only useful for “websites”. sad. the fact is, without an ip, you’ll always be just a “client”, waiting to be “served”.
so “end to end” will remain a fantasy. true “peer to peer” connection is a myth. there’s always a third party server that’s needed to boostrap the process… that’s because most users don’t have their own ip’s. why?
as long as ip addresses are horded by certain companies in cooperation with the number registries, neither of whom have any claim of “ownership” to mere numbers, it will stay this way.
users will be kept in the dark about what’s possible and spoon fed, slowly, with “new services”. things move at a glacial pace- only if you know history then you can see this. there’s far more to the internet than the “web”- heaps of bad blogs, javascript, ads and malware. people *should* be able to bypass facebook and connect directly with each other, for whatever they choose to use the network for: text, image, music, voice, video, whatever.
can’t do it without an ip address.
note: ms only bought a few hundred thousand numbers, not millions.
there is no vast conspiracy to prevent users from having their own ip’s. there just isn’t any demand for these numbers by ordinary users, nor much demand for more than just “websites” among those who do ask for ip’s (so “hosting” services easily keep them satiated with their narrow range of services).
alas, the people behind most (not all) of the hardware and software that’s being used on the internet today have a world view where it’s inconceivable that people who *already know each other* (e.g. the majority of facebook users) would want or be able to communicate using a computer network without involving some interaction with a third party to connect them *each and every time* (logging into some third party website) or to certify who is trustworthy and who is not (pki or its alternatives).
computer networks are built upon abstractions. and abstractions are fungible. simple abstractions can work just as well as complex ones.
the concept of the network address, far more than the idea of the “domain name” (and http servers), is the crucial element for people to connect with one another via their network devices. perhaps, once they know how, they will build their own social networks on top of the internet (not necessarily via the web and http). the participants in the networks they create may be exclusively chosen by them and might not include advertisers or other third parties. it’s their internet connection and it’s up to them how they choose to use it.
so ip addresses do matter for individual users. perhaps more than they realise.