[registrars] ICANN budget.

[JP]

Rick,

I do not think is market share, I believe is funds paid.

Wouldn't that change with the proposed model?

JP

> From: Rick Wesson <wessorh at ar.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
> To: Larry Erlich <erlich at domainregistry.com>
> Cc: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough
> registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share,
> not the one entity one vote.
> 
> sounds like a coupé.
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
> 
>> Rick Wesson wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bruce,
>>> 
>>>> A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
>>>> 
>>>> Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet
>>>> your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small
>>>> registrars.
>>>> 
>>>> The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will
>>> soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on
>>> which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the
>>> tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree
>>> with ICANN their assessment.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top
>>> 10 registrars
>> 
>> I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that
>> this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take
>> to get you guys onboard" outreach.
>> 
>>> certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and
>>> transparent" budget process.
>> 
>> It is surprising that he did not get response from
>> all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that
>> he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to
>> be several registrars.
>> 
>> Larry Erlich
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an
>>> international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
>>> 
>>> this isn't what the green paper advocated.
>>> 
>>> -rick
>> 
>> --
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
>> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich at DomainRegistry.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>