<html>
<body>
Jon,<br><br>
Thanks for the positive response.<br><br>
It's good to hear that the membership has grown in the past year and I
hope some of the proposed updates are able to keep that trend
going.<br><br>
The website you described sounds great. I think it should also
include an explanation of what the RC is, what it does, and how it fits
in with other groups. It should also include a glossary of industry
terms and acronyms that are commonly used during RC discussions.
These items may all seem obvious to a seasoned registrar, but I believe
they would help new members feel more comfortable with understanding the
role of the RC and joining in on discussions.<br><br>
Finally, based on your suggested update to Bob's proposal, for the
officers to vote on reduced fees based on extenuating circumstances, and
for those reductions to be kept confidential by those same parties, I am
inclined to agree. However, I don't think the budget amendment
should specifically refer to reduced fees of $250. Instead, it
could be amended to state "as low as $250", so that if the
member can afford say $500, that too could be accepted. Just a
suggestion.<br><br>
Regards,<br>
~Paul<br><br>
<br>
At 03:39 PM 7/31/2007, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#000080">I think that Paul
makes a number of important and helpful points below. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Jon <br>
<br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></font></div>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Paul Goldstone
[<a href="mailto:paulg@domainit.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:paulg@domainit.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:24 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nevett, Jonathon<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Registrar Constituency<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [registrars] Dues Structure<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
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</a><br><br>
<br>
At 12:09 PM 7/30/2007, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>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
San Juan 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>
<ol>
<li>Fixed dues without forgiveness – about $650 per member.
Everyone treated equally, but we might lose members who can’t afford the
dues.
<li>Fixed dues with forgiveness – current proposal – $750 per member with
ability to seek reduction to $250 based on need.</font>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>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.</font>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>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.</font>
<li><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>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).</font>
</ol><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2> <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>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> </font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>