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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

One of the biggest things gTLD registries are trying to guard against is this:  in case of separation, the portion of registry fees that are used for funding IANA services are redirected to other ICANN services and new fees are charge to registries to cover IANA services.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM
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?

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