[registrars] Analysis of ICANN fee position

[Siegfried Langenbach]

sorry,

I fail to see the logic : 
pay, otherwise they get the fee indirectly.


if a registrar fail to protest in such an huge budget increase that can 
only mean he is asking to much from his customers.

siegfried


On 15 Oct 2003 at 13:19, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

Subject:        	[registrars] Analysis of ICANN fee position
Date sent:      	Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:19:33 +1000
From:           	"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
To:             	<registrars at dnso.org>

> Hello All,
> 
> Here is my take on the current situation, and where we need to move
> forward for next year.
> 
> (1) Current situation
> - the budget is approved by the ICANN Board
> - Registrars have a limited ability to influence the budget during the
> budget process, and have even less ability to directly influence the
> Board members
> - the 2003-2004 budget is now approved by the ICANN Board
> (we should have been more vocal in the community before the budget was
> approved)
> - the current structure for meeting the ICANN budget is primarily from
> the suppliers of domain name services
> - presently ICANN can invoice registrars directly (if registrars agree
> to this), or as a back up they can invoice the registries directly
> - registries have built into their contracts the ability to pass on the
> fee to registrars
> - registries with significant market power are highly likely to pass on
> the fee to registrars (e.g Verisign)
> - registries with limited surpluses (cash reserves) will be forced to
> pass on the fees to registrars
> 
> While registrars pay the fee to ICANN we have at least some chance to
> influence ICANN in the areas that concern us.  This leverage is really
> based on the fact that ICANN will need to change their processes to
> invoice registries, and this will delay their receipt of funds and
> direct scarce resources to deal with the change.  The leverage will only
> work once, after that we will be bypassed in future years.
> 
> By refusing to pay the fee as a registrar, registries (especially
> Verisign) in the short term will gain greater leverage over ICANN.
> 
> Based on the current situation, Melbourne IT will approve ICAN billing
> us directly rather than collecting the same money from us mainly via
> Verisign (as they represent the bulk of our gtld domain name
> registrations).  Melbourne IT will also endorse the letter proposed by
> Elana.
> 
> 
> (2) Future situation
> 
> - registrars get more active in defining ICANN's budget
> (lets start now for 2004-2005 financial year)
> - registrars work within ICANN to consider alternative funding models
> (e.g ICANN could run an auction for new tlds and keep the proceeds to
> fund regulation, or even more radical ICANN could run an auction for the
> wildcard entry in the .com and .net zones, why should Verisign as a
> registrant get this entry at no cost)
> - for the per domain name fee compoenent of ICANN fees, lets make it a
> fixed fee per NEW/RENEWAL/TRANSFER transaction so that it can be clearly
> indicated to our customers - rather than based on a retroactive number
> of domains under management. 
> - I think it is better that ICANN's revenue be tied in some way to
> market growth rather than at present the budget is just apportined to
> registrars based on the number of domains under management (thus a
> company in the market for longer pays a larger portion of the fees) -
> this would align ICANN's goals more clearly to the goals of registrars
> 
> So I think for the future year, we should begin to think about different
> funding models for ICANN, and start campaigning.  Certainly the other
> sections of ICANN (other than registrars and registries) are quite happy
> for us to bear the burden of costs, and happy for ICANN budget to keep
> growing (as they don't see the effects).
> 
> Maybe an agenda topic for Carthage should be future funding models for
> ICANN.  If we don't do anything - expect the budget to increase again
> next year, and for us to be the most affected party.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
>