<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=616332611-21102004><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>hi ,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=616332611-21102004><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=616332611-21102004><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>indeed in this years budget we all did work together to get
whatever we could. judging from the process i am quite certain that the next
years budget can be an even greater consultative approach to do whats fair.
having said that however i do believe that icann has to draw a fine balance
between whats fair and what will get approved by the registrars ..... and it is
important for us to assist in that process as much as we can</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=616332611-21102004><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=616332611-21102004><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>bhavin</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim
Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:10 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Paul
Goldstone<BR><B>Cc:</B> Elmar Knipp; Bhavin Turakhia; 'Registrars
List'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: 2MM cap (was: [registrars] knowing when to fold
'em)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Paul, I hear you, and we should revisit the $2MM cap with ICANN
during the next budget process.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>What you propose for a fee calcualtion though sounds a lot like what we
had been doing. I'd like to see how the transactional fee works out before
going back to that. For example, if the fees brought in from transactions are
higher than projected (and I personally think that may be the case) the annual
portion will be reduced. We may find that it all works out pretty well for
registrars large or small.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: 2MM cap (was: [registrars] knowing
when to fold 'em)<BR>From: "Paul Goldstone"
<paulg@domainit.com><BR>Date: Wed, October 20, 2004 11:24 am<BR>To:
"Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com><BR>Cc: "Elmar Knipp"
<Elmar.Knipp@corenic.org>, "Bhavin
Turakhia"<BR><bhavin.t@directi.com>, "'Registrars List'"
<Registrars@dnso.org><BR><BR>Just back in town. I see your point
Tim, but ICANN efforts are partially proportional to registrar size and as
those one or two registrars grow beyond 8 million names or $2MM cap,
wouldn't ICANN's expenses for those registrars increase while their revenue
does not? At some stage it seems possible that the remaining
registrars will pay for those missing funds even if it's not in the
immediate future.<BR><BR>Whether or not this individual issue will be a
concern is only one of several anyway. Elmar's points about those
registrars having an unequal advantage and possibly avoiding future ICANN
fees are even more pertinent. There just doesn't seem to be a good reason to
include the cap but several to exclude it.<BR><BR>Similarly, the forgiveness
clause favors another group of registrars. The remaining registrars
who do not fit into either of these categories will be following the same
ICANN rules and regulations as the first two groups but will not get any
breaks at this time.<BR><BR>As a solution, I would prefer to see all
registrars pay an evenly distributed per domain fee to handle this portion
of the ICANN budget. That way all registars would continue to be
treated equal regardless of size or business model and their fees would only
increase or decrease in proportion to their own success.<BR><BR>ie.
(registrar budget fees) / (total # of domains) X (# of domains at
registrar) = (individual registrar fee)<BR><BR>Best,<BR>~Paul<BR><BR>At
10:21 AM 10/17/2004 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">My comment was directed to
Paul. I guess I replied to the wrong email.<BR> <BR>Paul was
concerned that the $2MM cap would mean that smaller registrars might have
to pay more to make up for some shortfall. I was pointing out that because
of the way the two components work that could not happen, and that if one
or more registrars hit that cap it would likely mean a reduction in the
annual portion (paid quarterly). Of course, as you point out, all
registrars would benefit from that reduction.<BR> <BR>I was not
commenting on the viability or fairness of the $2MM cap
itself.<BR><BR>Tim<BR>
<DL>
<DD>From: "Elmar Knipp" <Elmar.Knipp@corenic.org>
<DD>Date: Sun, October 17, 2004 11:21 am
<DD>To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
<DD>Cc: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>, "'Registrars
List'"
<DD><Registrars@dnso.org>, "Paul Goldstone"
<paulg@domainit.com><BR><BR>
<DD>On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR><BR>
<DD>> The $2MM cap has no affect on smaller registrars whatsoever.
The annual
<DD>> portion of the variable fee (the $3.8MM) is billed quarterly so
it will
<DD>> be paid first before any registrar will hit the $2MM cap. It
will be the
<DD>> transaction fees that cause a larger registrar to hit the cap.
And
<DD>> actually, if one or more large registrars hit that cap it will
mean lower
<DD>> fees for everyone else.
<DD>>
<DD>> The reason is that ICANN will have obviously underestimated
what the
<DD>> transaction fee will bring in, and the budget calls for using
any excess
<DD>> transaction fees to reduce the annual portion.<BR><BR>
<DD>Tim,<BR><BR>
<DD>I am not sure whether I got the point in your message. The cap has
nothing
<DD>to do with the quarterly collection of the fees. The quarterly
collection
<DD>is only the technic of charging and is independent of the yearly
result.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DD>Assume the following simplified two scenarios:<BR><BR>
<DD>Scenario 1)<BR><BR>
<DD>350 Registrars, nobody gets forgiveness, 1 registars has 7 million
domains
<DD>(called R-7), all other have the same number of domains, which is
lower
<DD>than 7 million (called R-all).<BR><BR>
<DD>Every registrar has to pay 3,800,000 USD / 350 = 10,857 USD.
<DD>Every registrar also has to pay 0.25 USD per domain year.<BR><BR>
<DD>R-7 will have payed at the end of the year 10.857 USD + 7,000,000 *
0.25
<DD>USD = 1,760,857 USD.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DD>Scenario 2)<BR><BR>
<DD>Same as above, but 7 million domains are transfered from R-all to
R-7
<DD>(20,000 domains from each R-all). R-7 has now 14 million
domains.<BR><BR>
<DD>In my view, R-7 has to pay at the end of the year 10.857 USD +
14,000,000
<DD>* 0.25 USD = 3,510,857 USD. But in the ICANN model he only has to
pay
<DD>2,000,000 USD, the cap.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DD>Conclusion: With the ICANN model R-7 gets a relief of 1,5 million
USD or
<DD>pays only 14 cent per domain. This seems to me inequitable.<BR><BR>
<DD>If there is more income than expected in the budget, the balance
could go
<DD>to 50 % in the reserves and the other 50 % should reduce the
variable fees
<DD>*of all* and *not only* from the huge registrars.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DD>Best Regards,
<DD>Elmar </DD></DL></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>