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

Martin Boyle Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk
Mon Jun 1 07:10:55 UTC 2015


The registry fees are one clear measure of the bench-line of the service.  I'm sure there will be pressures to increase fees post transition simply because of the costs of the new structures (essentially replacing the pro-bono service of the NTIA).

There are also a lot of other upward pressures on cost where there is an inclination just to see them as "worthwhile" or "inevitable" or even just as "a good idea."  However, budgetary discipline comes from the fees that individual registries (for ccTLDs) or registrants or registrars or registries (for gTLDs) pay for the service.

There does need to be a serious consideration on whether something is necessary or simply gold-plating.  Because at some stage, the registries are going to be asked to up their payments, and this is at a time when many are looking carefully at their own costs in an increasingly competitive market.

So as I said earlier, at transition, during the "steady-state" operation of the service and for any future separation of the IANA functions operator, I think that it is important to give some attention to the "fee" side of the equation.  It does not need to be an exact science, but it is essential to budget discipline.

In answer to your question, then, I'd say both, because without some sort of cause-effect consideration, it is likely that costs are just added because they look like worthy ideas.  We've heard a lot of arguments about up-rating SLEs, but little about the objective setting of SLEs, for example.  More focus on the registry costs might make it easier for us to focus on what matters!


-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: 01 June 2015 02:41
To: Gomes, Chuck; avri at acm.org; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...

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?


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

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

More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list