[registrars] icann budget position (ascio)

[Patricio Valdes]

JP

So I assume that "ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an
"ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry" as you mention means ponying up to ICANN
every time they desire? I assume you mean us, Parava Networks, an ICANN
accredited Registrar since 1999 are not worhty of being one? I assume you
mean I should work 12 hours days and weekends so I can pay for ICANN's
travel expenses and $100k a year employees?

It is not fair for me to pay for other peoples trips to Malaysia and pay
aprox. $800k per ICANN meeting as established in the Budget.

I can go on if you wish.

Patricio Valdes
Parava Networks, Inc.
 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of JP
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Nikolaj Nyholm; registrars at dnso.org
Cc: Dan Halloran; twomey at icann.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)


Nikolaj and All,

I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do
not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed
expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the
responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar"
carry.

Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN
accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to
improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even
interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited
and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a
cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is
fair to ask me to pay for them.

Regards,

JP Vazquez

> From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn at ascio.com>
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Cc: halloran at icann.org, twomey at icann.org
> Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
> 
> 
> Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN 
> budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last 
> few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum 
> up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it 
> is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if 
> our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record 
> with our position.
> 
> 
> o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
> 
> o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
> 
> o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative 
> burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if 
> ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations 
> are met;
> 
> o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per 
> Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable 
> amount like $25.000/year;
> 
> o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future 
> registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures 
> ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot 
> automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the 
> current Registry contracts; and
> 
> o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the 
> constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area 
> where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS 
> initiatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Nikolaj Nyholm
> nikolajn at ascio.com