[registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget

[Tim Ruiz]

Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go
Daddy.

Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our
industry? If so:

They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of
Commerce.

They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.

They need to be able to enforce their agreements.

The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those
issues.

I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no
idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I
have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM
To: registrars at dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget

Hello All,

For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget
from three points of view:

(1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas  (ie
look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set
roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget

(2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in
the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars)
and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector
can afford)  - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on
funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude
for the budget  (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the
registries).

(3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the
per registrar fee.

Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the
revenue for ICANN.  I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does
not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with
registrants.    With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a
contract with ICANN and who pay the fees.  Alternatively ICANN has a
contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to
their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is
effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees.

So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice:
- (1) under the existing model charge registrars.  This requires no
contractual changes.
- (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with
registrants and invoices registrants.  Registrars could collect a fee on
behalf of ICANN.   This second model would require contractual changes.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin