[registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget

Thu May 13 13:19:38 UTC 2004

I agree with Tim that we need to support a strong ICANN.  To that end, we need to make sure that ICANN is being hard nosed about its own costs - like any of our businesses have to be, and appropriately allocating the budget according to cost centers.  For example, where a certain constituency gets the primary benefit, its contribution to ICANN should provide a relatively equivalent value to the cost.  Likewise, where compliance oversight drives ICANN costs, it is appropriate to structure some of the fees that way.  Perhaps, ICANN should consider fines for violations that are not serious enough to cause de-accreditation.

The benefit to a transaction model with a cap is that it gives us predictability and makes it easier to pass on the fee for registrars who choose to do so.

The question will be how the transition from a per domain to a per transaction model will occur - we need to watch out that double billing does not occur.  

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman at register.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Jean-Michel Becar
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:22 PM
To: Donny Simonton
Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; registrars at dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget

Tim's point is if ICANN increases our costs.......how can we charge the 
registrant for the increased costs...it's too late :-(
The registrant bought his domains for several years when ICANN was 
cheaper but if every year ICANN askes us more and more money so our 
margin for that domain decrease and profit and revenus projections may 
be confused by the fact we don't really know where we are going in term 
of costs.

So the fees collected at the registration time takes only into account 
the current costs and not the future....I understand Tim's concerns in 
that way and I have the same.
Regards,
Jean-Michel

Donny Simonton wrote:

>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>