[registrars] Analysis of ICANN fee position

[Tim Ruiz]

>Not sure what you mean here.  Our ability 
>as registrars to influence via 
>payment/non-payment is very limited.

Actually, that was my whole point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:33 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Analysis of ICANN fee position

Hello Tim,

> 
> I really don't see where registrars have any "leverage" 
> because we pay the fees. ICANN "allows" us to pay the fee, 
> but can collect it at any time from the registries instead. 
> So where's the leverage? 

Timing.  The earlier ICANN gets the funds for the least effort the
better for them.
If we decide not to approve their request, we delay their process and
could cause cash flow issues.

> 
> If the registries pay directly and then raise their fees in 
> accordance with 7E, the registrars will still be the ones 
> actually paying it. So if we have leverage now, why would we 
> lose it just because we pay ICANN fees through the registries 
> instead of directly?

Because the registries can control when they pay ICANN.  They can still
charge us through the clause in the contract, and they would take this
straight out of our balances which we hold with them (ie we effectively
pre-pay the registries).  Granted the effect for us is that we delay
having to make a payment (it will be awhile before the effect trickles
done to us).  The difference is that registries can control the delay,
not us.


> 
> If we must pay the fees directly to influence the process, 
> then what are the GNSO and the rest of ICANN's bylaws all about?

Not sure what you mean here.  Our ability as registrars to influence via
payment/non-payment is very limited.  I believe that we have slightly
more influence in terms of timing, then we would have if we didn't pay
ICANN directly.


> 
> The DNSO/GNSO overwhelmingly gave the thumbs down on WLS when 
> asked by ICANN. ICANN gave it their thumbs up. Where was our 
> leverage then?

The issues here are partly contractual.  As I understand the current
situation with new services (without any procedure), the GNSO and
constituencies have similar weight in that they are registering public
comments/advice to the Board.  Apparently the Board did not find those
comments persuasive. The Board does not yet have any defined process for
analysing and accepting/rejecting services - thus it is purely up to
their personal views (similar to the budget process actually!) and is
basically a top-down decision.

The role of the GNSO with respect to creating new consensus policies is
very different.  This is actually built into the bylaws and contracts.
We have far greater influence in creating policies.  If you follow the
GNSO Council list you will notice that the registry constituency is
trying to avoid having the GNSO come up with a process for introducing
new registry services.

> 
> VeriSign is limited to 5000 domain name registrations without 
> having to go through a registrar, yet with Site Finder they 
> are attempting to basically park somewhat less than 2 * 37^63 
> domain names on their own page without having to register any 
> of them. I'm not convinced that if registrars were the only 
> ones complaining that anything would have been done about it.
> 

I agree with the comment that it would take more than registrars to have
an impact on any decision relating to registry services.  We are one of
many voices.

Regards,
Bruce