<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1498957236;
mso-list-template-ids:-1462326348;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0pt;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0pt;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I think that Paul makes a number of
important and helpful points below. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The consensus of the ExCom was to have an
equal dues structure to avoid all of the issues related to a multi-tiered structure
based on registrar size or uneven benefits that folks have raised over the past
few days. The one distinction between what Paul has written and what we have
in the current proposal is a limited ability for a member to seek a fee
reduction based on need. We envisioned using this to encourage new
members and to keep a few members that really can’t afford the extra $500.
It is not intended for registrars who just don’t want to pay the extra
$500. As Tom Barrett suggested, we don’t expect too many
applications for fee reductions. But it’s nice to have some
flexibility in case of extenuating circumstances. As Bob suggested in his
recent post, I think those members that seek a reduction should remain
confidential (similar to the system that ICANN employees with its fee
forgiveness). In my opinion, however, the information needs to be kept
confidential by the four officers (and by the staff member who monitors the
account) and not just by the Treasurer in that the fee reduction should be authorized
by a majority vote of the officers voting, not just by a unilateral decision of
the Treasurer.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>With dues at $750, pro-ration definitely
makes sense for new members. Finally, invoicing dues and payment went
much better last year than in prior years. We hope to continue that
improvement this year after a budget is approved.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Paul also raises a good point about
increasing membership. Our membership has grown 20% YoY in the past
fiscal year. Had it not, the current dues proposal would probably be in
the $900-$1,000 range. With that said, we could do better. I
attended the most recent ICANN regional gathering and spoke with 5-7 solid prospective
members. Hopefully, that should help bring in some members and reduce
fees in future years. Also, with ICANN’s new RADAR database, it
should help our ability to reach out to more prospective members. I also agree
with Paul that the website has been in need of improvement for many
years. I’d like to have a simple site that contains our key
documents, contact information, a way to pay dues, and the e-mail archive that
only is available to members. Dan Warner and Rob Hall are working on
developing that capability. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I finally want to make a point about the
$750 this year. As you probably know, the ICANN Board has approved a
process for changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) that
includes a specific role for consultations between ICANN and the Registrar
Constituency <a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm#k">http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm#k</a>.
Thus, this year we are charged with negotiating changes to the RAA on behalf of
every ICANN-accredited registrar. How much would each member incur in
legal fees and internal resources in individually negotiating a contract with
ICANN? In my mind, $750 would be quite reasonable to have a group negotiate
a contract on my behalf and enable me to have direct input on the negotiation process
and the substance of the agreement if I want it. This process, of course,
will be in addition to the ICANN public comment period. Also, we envision
using the newly created member-only list for most of the internal discussions
related to the RAA. This benefit of membership, of course, is on top of all
the other benefits that we have discussed earlier in the week. I hope
folks agree that even at $750, the RC is a worthwhile membership and will
support the budget proposed.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Jon <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Paul Goldstone
[mailto:paulg@domainit.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:24
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Nevett, Jonathon<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Registrar Constituency<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [registrars] Dues
Structure</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Jon,<br>
<br>
Thanks for gathering the proposals for comment.<br>
<br>
The benefits of an RC membership are equal regardless of the size of the
registrar or how much money they make. With that in mind, it is only fair
that all registrars should pay the same equal amount.<br>
<br>
As for keeping the annual dues low, it would be a good idea to update the
outdated RC website and send the URL to all registrars, along with an
invitation to join the mailing list. I wonder how many registrars are not
aware of the RC, or perhaps aware of the RC but not of its benefits. By
informing more registrars, we'd get more memberships and in turn a lower per
registrar fee, not to mention a larger and more unified group. I also
feel that the RC should offer pro-rated fees for registrars joining part way
through the year.<br>
<br>
For some perspective, Domain-It has been registering domains since 1996,
accredited since 2000, on the RC mailing list since 2002, but we only became an
official RC member last year. Just for insight into our experience,
nobody clearly explained the benefits of the RC, or approached us for
dues. Of the few occasions we approached the RC to pay dues, twice it was
at year end and we would have been required to pay the full amount ($750) for
just a month or two of membership, and another time, the RC was not able to
take our payment.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have the figures on how many registrars are eligible to join the RC
and how many of those are actually members, or more to the point, not
members? That would give us an idea of how much outreach is needed.
FYI, according to Paul Westley in Jan '04 (RC treasurer at the time) there were
~50 official RC members, out of ~150 accredited registrars.<br>
<br>
Here are the points I covered and feel should be implemented:<br>
<br>
- Update RC website and inform ALL registrars of the RC site and mailing list<br>
- Charge all registrars an equal membership fee for equal benefits<br>
- Provide invoices and an easy way for registrars to pay membership fees<br>
- Allow pro-rated membership fees for new members joining mid year<br>
<br>
I also agree that retaining a part time staff person to coordinate the above
and other tasks is a great idea.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Paul Goldstone<br>
President and CEO<br>
Domain-It, Inc.<br>
<a href="http://www.domainit.com/" eudora=autourl>http://www.domainit.com<br>
<br>
<br>
</a>At 12:09 PM 7/30/2007, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Thanks all for the helpful and constructive
discussion. As you can tell, there are no easy answers to this
issue. In an effort to frame the debate and to do an informal straw poll,
let me make a few points and ask a question:<br>
<br>
First, the question has come up about the benefits of membership to the
Registrar Constituency (“RC”). A number of members recently
have raised the economic decision Richard Lau discussed in his posting.
Why should a registrar pay dues vs. enjoying many of the benefits of membership
without paying? For those of you who were not at the San Juan meeting, we
are trying to address this “free rider” issue in a number of ways,
and believe that the following more than justifies an investment of $250 per
year. <br>
<br>
<u>Current Benefits of RC Membership Not Available to Non-Members <br>
</u>Ability to vote in elections and on motions, the budget, issue statements,
etc. <br>
Ability to represent the RC as an officer, on the GNSO Council, the Nominating
Committee, or various task forces and working groups<br>
Ability to attend closed sessions of RC meetings<br>
Ability to sit at the table at the RC meetings with better access to the
limited microphones and power strips (new)<br>
Ability to post and receive e-mails on the member-only list that we are
creating (new)<br>
Ability to receive access to a list archives that are organized and searchable
(proposed) <br>
<br>
Second, I support fully the efforts to retain a part time professional staff
person to support the constituency. This is a very important time for
registrars as we are at a period during which we likely will see changes to our
contract with ICANN for the first time in six years, structural changes to
ICANN itself, as well as structural changes to the GNSO impacting our role in
the policy development process. We need to be out in front of these
issues and other policy issues that are being discussed. A proactive RC
is much more effective than just a reactive one. I haven’t heard
much in the way of objection to the proposal to retain such a staff person
either during our discussion in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">San
Juan</st1:place></st1:City> or subsequently on the list, so for purposes of
this note I will assume it is supported as long as we can work out the
financing.<br>
<br>
Finally, the issue then is how we pay for the additional services. I
absolutely agree with Marcus that the constituencies should receive some
support from ICANN, so my hope is that this is a short term issue. Just
like Rob and Bob described, the dues were $750 at some point in the past and
then were reduced when the need no longer existed to have them at that
level. I hope the same will be true through due to support from ICANN.
Until such a time, however, we need to work out an equitable solution to
address the shortfall. In the budget, we proposed a fixed rate with an
ability to seek forgiveness, but are open to other options if the membership
prefers. Here are the options I have seen thus far.<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<ol start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Fixed dues without forgiveness – about
$650 per member. Everyone treated equally, but we might lose members
who can’t afford the dues. <o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Fixed dues with forgiveness – current
proposal – $750 per member with ability to seek reduction to $250
based on need.</span></font> <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Fixed dues with a collections plate (Connelly
Proposal) – registrars that can afford it donate additional amounts
to the RC, but no additional benefits for donating.</span></font> <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Tiered dues based on domain names under
management (Barrett Proposal) – large registrars must pay more based
on size, but no additional benefits for paying more.</span></font> <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Tiered dues based on registrar choice (Lau
Proposal) – maybe one tier at $1250 and another at $250 – all
registrars have an equal right to choose between Gold and Silver
membership levels, but the Gold level members receive additional benefits
in addition to the ones enumerated above (this may require changes to the
Bylaws depending on what incentives to join the Gold level are included --
e.g. weighted voting).</span></font> <o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'> <br>
I apologize if I mischaracterized or missed any of the proposals, but it would
be helpful if folks let us know which of the 5 options they would support
(maybe more than one). <br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>