[CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...

Gomes, Chuck cgomes at verisign.com
Mon Jun 1 01:15:30 UTC 2015

My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...


On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri:  How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?

As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?

Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated.  Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest.  I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment  that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond.  It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship.  As between parent and ward.

The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list