[registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget

[Donny Simonton]

Jay,
That's exactly what we will be doing.  If registrar A collects a payment for
8 years of domain registrations, they pay immediately to ICANN 8 years of
fees.  Then if in year 2 the customer transfers the domain to another domain
registrar, the new registrar is only responsible for the 1 year
transfer/renewal.

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:08 PM
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
> 
> Donny,
> I rather ICANN collect it upfront rather then ask the current registrar to
> pay it, If a registrant has a 8 year registration with registrar A, then
> he
> moves to registrar B. Why should registrar B pay for years 2-7 ICANN fee
> when registrar A collected the money. The easiest solutions I see is to
> pay
> ICANN the tariff/tax at the time of collection.
> 
> Jay Westerdal
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Donny Simonton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:45 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
> 
> Tim,
> >From my understanding as a domain is purchased all fees/taxes whatever
> you
> want to call it will be due to ICANN at that time for all service periods.
> So if a customer purchases a domain for 10 years you will owe ICANN 10
> times
> $0.xx.  This is unlike in the past when you would have only owed for this
> year, you will now owe for all years purchased.  ICANN wants their money
> today, not 10 years from now!
> 
> Donny
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> > registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:30 PM
> > To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars at dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
>