[registrars] 66% needed for approval

[Monte Cahn]

I think we are on to something here.....

Not to say "I told you so" but I suggested this idea more than 9 months ago
when we were initially discussing the budget impact on registrars but my
idea was shot down as I was told that we had no leverage or decision in what
was going to happen.  It now appears that we do have some leverage now? 


Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO
 
Monte at Moniker.com
Monte at DomainSystems.com
 
O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155
 
Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:01 AM
To: Jean-Michel Becar; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Jean-Michel,

Yes, you are correct that the Registries can collect some money from us if
they have to pay.

BUT

They have a CAP on what they pay to ICANN.  They can only collect and pass
on to ICANN so much, and it is much less than what ICANN wants from us.

You are also correct, that CAP can go up only 15% per year, but it starts
far lower than what the budget is this year.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Michel Becar [mailto:jmbecar at gmo.jp]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:29 AM
To: Rob Hall; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval


Rob,
Just to correct you assement about the registries, In fact the registries
are not  forced to pay in case of the registars are not paying.
But The registries  can be forced to collect the money from the registrars
to give it to ICANN.
So the registries contract are really better than our contract: they have a
cap fee no more than 15% per year increase and they have provisions to make
us paying our due to ICANN so they won't have to pay for us.

I think Rick already said that: may be it's time to renegociate our contract
with ICANN.

Jean-Michel

Rob Hall wrote:

>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
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>