[registrars] icann budget position (ascio)

[Rick Wesson]

one question that the budget didn't answer is "how much does it cost to 
support the registrars?"

without that answer we can't argue about "pay for use"

-rick

JP wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>