[registrars] Next Steps

Fri May 28 18:48:54 UTC 2004

that's a great start for our Tuesday call

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman at register.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of tbarrett
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:42 PM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: [registrars] Next Steps

A straw vote would be useful on the following:

"Do the Registrars support the proposed increase in fees proposed by ICANN?"
Yes or No.

The vote should be tabulated according to the method that would be used by
ICANN. (i.e. the 66% rule).  If the top 15 registrars are supporting the new
budget, I would like to know.

A continuing dialogue with ICANN would be helpful.  I would suggest a more
complete list of issues and questions be developed before the BAG meets with
ICANN.

Here is my list:

2. The registrars would like an agreed upon cap for any increases in the
fees
3. The registrars would like specific predictable criteria developed to
determine when registrar fees are to be waived by ICANN
4. Under this criteria, how many registrars are expected to be exempt?
5. Based on the waiving of fees, what is the adjusted per registrar fee
expected?
6. What is ICANN's plan if other sources of revenue from cctld's and gtld
registries and other sources do not materialize?
7. What are the plans for making the ICANN meetings self-funding and not a
budgetitem?
8. What is the rationale for not accepting offers of in-kind support from
third parties, such as CENTR?
9. Can ICANN get a bridge-loan to relieve immediate pressures?
10. What other issues should the BAG ask ICANN and report back on?

Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:45 PM
To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it

Okay, I understand it now. Would it be Okay if the Budget Advisory Group
reps took this up with Kurt and the staff instead of the ExCom?

We'd ask for a formal commitment that the transaction and per-registrar
fees, however those fall in or out, be capped at the agreed upon level for a
3-year period.

If the other two BAG reps agree, and no one on the list objects, does it
really require a vote to pursue? We should also bring this up when we all
meet with Kurt again as a group.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura at enom.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:06 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it

My interpretation of what Kurt said in his email tells me that it would not
take much.  Therefore the motion directs excom to communicate with ICANN so
that when we are asked to vote on the budget (the "2/3 required" vote) that
ICANN include the "cap it" commitment with the budget request that we are
voting on (whatever the model and amount of that turns out to be in the
end).  The "cap it" commitment would be that, for the length of the budget
(I think it is 3 years?), the model ($X per registrar-year and $.Y per
transaction name-year) and the amount (the X and Y) does not increase. Note
that this does not cap our contribution to the budget (number of registrars
and number of transactions can increase or decrease).  We should still
retain our ability to vote again 1 and 2 years from now, even though we
would be at the cap limit.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:34 AM
To: 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Paul Stahura'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it

What exactly is the motion directing the ExCom to do?  And what mechanism
will the ExCom use to accomplish it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Westerdal [mailto:jwesterdal at nameintel.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:26 AM
To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'Monte Cahn'; 'Tim Ruiz'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it

I second Paul's motion.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.
http://www.nameintelligence.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 6:32 PM
To: 'Monte Cahn'; 'Tim Ruiz'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: [registrars] Cap it

I agree with Monte.  
We need to draw a line in the sand this year, regardless.
I said so last year.
Last time, I said,
"I believe we need to make clear to ICANN now that we will not support any
increase in fees to registrars." 
and
"We need to warn ICANN now that while we may or may not support a budget
increase, that the increase, if any, not be born by the registrars." (You
can read the rest in our archive
http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg01073.html )

We did not to that, but it is better late than never.

Let's not wait yet another year.
I still believe the only way we can stop these year-after-year increases is
to have our own cap.

Kurt said in his 5/19 email:
"Where the budget ascribed to holding the 25 cent fee constant, it should
also be taken as making the same commitment to the per annum fee."

Regardless of the rest, we need to at least get this commitment formalized
before any budget-voting happens.  So I move we authorize excom to do so.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Monte Cahn
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:56 PM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; ross at tucows.com
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Well - it appears we are not left in a very good position today.  I feel
that just laying over and letting this happen without putting forth a firm
stance on what our position is on this issue is a big mistake.  Look what
just happened to us as Registrars this year.  What makes you think that this
process will not continue next year (or in 3 years) and the year after.
Let's not be afraid to make a stance with ICANN, we are being too easy on
this issue.  Look at the letter that Paul Kane put out.  Be the squeaky
wheel that needs oil!

Let's draw a definite line in the sand regardless of what happens to us this
year so that next year/years we do use our leverage with the registries and
other sources to supplement the increase yet to come.   Also we are spending
way too much time away from our business complaining, disagreeing with each
other based on our relative business models and size.  Don't you think that
ICANN knows that the top 10 Registrars control 80% of the domains today and
the reason they were consulted with only them?  Although I see that top 10
picture changing over the next 12 months, it is important that we all stay
unified and together as a group on the future of our industry.  Internet
users are predicted to double again in the next 3-5 years and we can all
share in the registrations and complementary services if we stay together.

Just my thoughts.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim at godaddy.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:30 PM
To: ross at tucows.com; 'Monte Cahn'
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

Exactly. Also, once they have this worked out where do you think that is
going to leave us next year and the year after that as far as having a
significant voice in this process?

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:58 AM
To: Monte Cahn
Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval

On 5/27/2004 10:41 AM Monte Cahn noted that:

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

Doubtful. It only requires the consent of ICANN to modify this contract. 
  I think it would be pretty easy for the various registries to draw up a
quick Christmas list of things they want in exchange for signing a revised
contract that lifts these caps. I also expect that this could be done in a
couple of weeks, behind closed doors and likely seal our fate permanently.

The problem of the size of the budget doesn't go away no matter how many
  potential angles we come up with. We can either focus on that or, in my
opinion, lose (big).
-- 

                        -rwr

                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org