[registrars] Fw: BOUNCE registrars at gnso.icann.org: Non-member submission from ["Robert Andrews" <randrews at aol.net>]

[Rick Wesson]

This message from Robert Andrews bounced, i am forwarding it to the list...

-rick


From: "Robert Andrews" <randrews at aol.net>
To: <registrars at boardrooms.org>
Cc: <registrars at dnso.org>
Subject: RE: ICANN Fees Continued
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:24:44 -0400
Message-ID: <EKEOIJEAPDAOHCLBFJBMMEKFCEAA.randrews at aol.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To: <01bf01c39292$c2b30ae0$e001a8c0 at montejr>
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance: Normal

Basic business principles dictate a rise in rates.  The Registries are
service organizations.  Suppose ICANN raises the fees that Registries have
to pay.  Do you think they are just going to reach into their pockets and
pay(according to my last ICANN invoice) $3,768,518 a year to cover the
current registrar fees and not look to charge someone for it? ICANN wants to
double this number to $7.5 million+.  The Public Interest Registry (.org) is
a non-profit. They will have to raise their fees or they will require
outside funding.  No way to run a self sustaining .org!

The registration fee is $6 and $5.75 because the system is set up to allow
registrars to sell the names for a profit and subsequently generate enough
money to also provide funding ICANN. $6 and $5.75 are cost basis pricing for
the registries.  The registries will certainly demand an increase in
registration price.

>>Who says it is a guarantee that the fees will be passed on to us by the
registries?
Common sense says that this will occur.

>>I feel that we have far greater leverage with the registries than we do
with ICANN.
Yeah, Verisign really listened to you about the site finder service.  ICANN
asked the registrars for their opinion and then forced the registrars
opinion upon Verisign. I see that you voted on the TLD Wildcards ballot and
your voice was heard by ICANN.

>>There also seems to be more profit being collected by the registries than
the registrars on average.
Public Interest Registry is a non-profit.  Verisign has a registry division
separate from the registrar division.   If they have any profit in the
registry division, they would be severely hit by the .com and .net fees of
$3.47 million or $6.94 million after the increase.

-----Original Message-----
From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte at moniker.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:36 PM
To: 'Robert Andrews'; registrars at boardrooms.org
Cc: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: RE: ICANN Fees Continued
Importance: High


  I feel that we have far greater leverage with the
registries than we do with ICANN - especially those that want to
increase their brand in a primarily .com world.  I may be wrong but
their seems to be far greater leverage between the registries and ICANN
than we have with ICANN.  We are not ICANN's voice or customer but we
are the registries customer.  There also seems to be more profit being
collected by the registries than the registrars on average.

Please clarify that in fact the registries will be raising fees to us or
is everyone just assuming this?

Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO

Monte at Moniker.com
Monte at DomainSystems.com

O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155

Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Andrews [mailto:randrews at aol.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:03 PM
To: registrars at boardrooms.org
Cc: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: ICANN Fees Continued


There are many aspects to this ICANN fee proposal.  First, ICANN is
woefully understaffed and is in need of personnel.  The items below are
from the current year ICANN budget proposal. They say in their budget
that they will use the money to work on the shortcomings that we are all
aware of.  Second, the legal operating agreements say that ICANN and the
registries can raise fees by mutual agreement between ICANN's Board and
the Registry.

If we don't pay the fees as registrars, you can surmise that the fees
charged for registrations by the registries will rise as ICANN bills
them for the revenue they want/need. If we do pay as registrars, the
registration fees will not be under pressure to increase in the short
term.  In either scenario, registrars will be forced to pass this
increased expense onto their customers.  What the registrars will lose
if they do not pay the fees is their powerful voice as a constituency of
ICANN.

As for the howling about the site finder service, there are no clauses
in the contracts that prohibit these types of actions.  We, as the
registrars, were able to block this practice and force reforms using our
consituency with ICANN. I understand that the registrars are in a
difficult business climate, but it seems to me that ICANN needs to be
ramped up to deal with an ever growing slate of issues such as the Site
Finder debacle.  Reforms in this case means the use of lawyers to write
new stuff after the usual string of endless meetings.

And I would love to hear any ideas and proposals to make Site Finder a
revenue producer for everyone!

------
>From the ICANN Budget Proposal
This Preliminary FY04 Budget builds on the Adopted FY03 Budget primarily
by providing for the expansion of ICANN staff and other resources
required to meet the obligations required by the approved ICANN reforms
as embodied in the bylaws and in board resolutions.

An increase in both staffing and expenditures to accommodate the
additional programmatic requirements imposed by the new reforms and the
new bylaws, that is, the transition from ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0.

The addition of a Deputy General Counsel to ease the considerable burden
that falls on the General Counsel. This in-house position will also
mitigate to some extent expenditures for outside counsel.
------


Robert B. Andrews
America Online, Inc.
Systems Programmer, Network Management
RobAndrews2 at aol.com, randrews at aol.net
703/265-5958 x55958

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of America Online, Inc. Finally, the recipient should check this
email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. America Online,
Inc. accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this email.