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

[Alan Greenberg]

Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:

* Capriciouslty?
* Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, 
and/or may rise significantly in the future?

If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today?

If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the 
structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from 
today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from 
PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the 
registries, costs may rise even higher.

I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future 
changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's 
primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.

So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here 
and what are you trying to protect against?

Alan

At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>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.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----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 ...
>
>Hi,
>
>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.
>
>
>avri
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>http://www.avast.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship