[registrars] 66% needed for approval

[Rob Hall]

Actually, Rick, that is not the case this year.

In past years, you would be correct.  But this year, the introduction of the
minimum fee means that more registrars need to vote YES for ICANN to get
what it wants.

ICANN needs 66% by MONEY PAID to ICANN by REGISTRARS, not by number of
domains under registration.  In the past, when the entire amount owned by
registrars was calculated based on the number of domains a registrar had,
then it was a direct relationship.

But this year, because of the separate minimum fee for a registrar, the
money paid now becomes a much higher percentage for the overall pie for the
small registrars.

When you couple that with the fact that ICANN needs 66% to be proactive and
accept things, it could be hard for them to reach this year.  A registrar
that does nothing, counts as a NO vote against them.

So if you figure that most registrars don't even participate in the
constituency, and there is a fair number of people against the current
proposal, it is entirely possible that the Registries will be forced to pay
this year.

When you couple that with the fact that the Registries have a fee cap
provision, such an occurrence would lead to ICANN's budget being very
reduced from what they have asked for.  It might even start them in earnest
looking for other sources of revenue <grin>.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:24 PM
To: Larry Erlich
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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>