<html>
<body>
At 09:27 PM 5/26/2004, Larry Erlich wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I have explained it. We see it
differently. There is no<br>
reason to ever guarantee customers that a variable cost<br>
won't change unless you have a contract with someone<br>
else stating that the variable cost won't change. Then I guess<br>
it would be reasonable to guarantee the variable cost.<br>
This isn't the case with ICANN fees and I thought there were<br>
ways for even Verisign to increase the $6 rate.<font color="#FF0000">
We</font> don't<br>
take money in advance from customers so this isn't an issue<br>
for us and additionally <font color="#FF0000">we</font> don't sell
domains for small amounts<br>
over cost. </blockquote><br>
Dear Larry:<br><br>
Ahaa, you got me thinking. At PSI-Japan, we take some multi-year
registrations. But we pay the registry in real time. That
also means that we pay the existing ICANN "transaction fee" in
real time -- no down road surprises:-)<br><br>
There may be a few registrars who have flown in the face of the Code of
Conduct recommendation that registrars who book multi year registrations
should *register* the domains for the period promised.<br><br>
For example, Registrar X takes a registration from registrant Y for ten
years. But X only pays RegistrY for one year and uses the
difference to build cash flow. X may have taken the ten year
registration with a small markup. X may even have accepted less
than ten times the "transaction charge" from the RegistrY,
gaming the system in the expectation of a reduction of prices from the
RegistrY.<br><br>
I guess they're up a brown creek without a paddle;-} So let it
be.<br><br>
Let's have a small fixed fee and pay the necessary ICANN transaction fee
-- after we send the ICANN budget to the gym to take off the
fat<font size=5><b>;</font><font size=5 color="#FF0000">-</font><font size=5><i>}<br><br>
</i></b></font>Let's hear that motion for us to vote on:-)<br><br>
Regards, BobC<br><br>
</body>
</html>