Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Check, are you worried about registry fees going up: * Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future? If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today? If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher. I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible. So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against? Alan At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan, The registry fees are one clear measure of the bench-line of the service. I'm sure there will be pressures to increase fees post transition simply because of the costs of the new structures (essentially replacing the pro-bono service of the NTIA). There are also a lot of other upward pressures on cost where there is an inclination just to see them as "worthwhile" or "inevitable" or even just as "a good idea." However, budgetary discipline comes from the fees that individual registries (for ccTLDs) or registrants or registrars or registries (for gTLDs) pay for the service. There does need to be a serious consideration on whether something is necessary or simply gold-plating. Because at some stage, the registries are going to be asked to up their payments, and this is at a time when many are looking carefully at their own costs in an increasingly competitive market. So as I said earlier, at transition, during the "steady-state" operation of the service and for any future separation of the IANA functions operator, I think that it is important to give some attention to the "fee" side of the equation. It does not need to be an exact science, but it is essential to budget discipline. In answer to your question, then, I'd say both, because without some sort of cause-effect consideration, it is likely that costs are just added because they look like worthy ideas. We've heard a lot of arguments about up-rating SLEs, but little about the objective setting of SLEs, for example. More focus on the registry costs might make it easier for us to focus on what matters! Martin -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: 01 June 2015 02:41 To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... Check, are you worried about registry fees going up: * Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future? If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today? If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher. I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible. So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against? Alan At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan, One of the biggest things gTLD registries are trying to guard against is this: in case of separation, the portion of registry fees that are used for funding IANA services are redirected to other ICANN services and new fees are charge to registries to cover IANA services. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... Check, are you worried about registry fees going up: * Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future? If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today? If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher. I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible. So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against? Alan At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I would challenge the idea that costs will inevitably go up - though it depends on the institutional structure we put into place. Costs certainly _will_ go up if we continue to see the IANA services as something that only the current operator can do and erect enormous procedural barriers to having an RFP or a change of service providers. I can tell you that from 30 years of experience studying regulation of monopolies based on cost-recovery instead of competitive models. There may already be elements of current IANA services that could be considered gold-plating. On the other hand if the review process is attentive to cost and will at least look at other bids once in a while I suspect that costs can be contained. This doesn't mean that cost is the only factor to take into consideration in selecting an IFO, of course, just to head off any cheap shots. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:
* Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future?
If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today?
If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher.
I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.
So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against?
Alan
At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I agree with Milton that the IANA costs are most likely to up if we effectively grant ICANN an IANA monopoly by erecting barriers to entry and anointing ICANN as the sole source provider. The essence of monopoly power is the ability to raise prices and keep them there due to a lack of actual or potential competition. Actual or potential competitors provide the necessary pressure to limit prices and foster innovation. (I can't say I've spent 30 years studying regulation of monopolies, but in the first 12 years of my practice, I spent at least as much time as an antitrust lawyer as I did as an IP/technology lawyer.) On a separate but related point, would it make sense to try and create a budget for Post-Transition IANA, or at least to identify the additional cost components (if any)? I find that speaking in specifics tends to eliminate many of the worst-case scenarios that still seem possible when speaking in generalities. Greg On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I would challenge the idea that costs will inevitably go up - though it depends on the institutional structure we put into place. Costs certainly _will_ go up if we continue to see the IANA services as something that only the current operator can do and erect enormous procedural barriers to having an RFP or a change of service providers. I can tell you that from 30 years of experience studying regulation of monopolies based on cost-recovery instead of competitive models. There may already be elements of current IANA services that could be considered gold-plating. On the other hand if the review process is attentive to cost and will at least look at other bids once in a while I suspect that costs can be contained. This doesn't mean that cost is the only factor to take into consideration in selecting an IFO, of course, just to head off any cheap shots.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:
* Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future?
If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today?
If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher.
I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.
So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against?
Alan
At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Greg, I think it does make sense to ‘create a budget for Post-Transition IANA’. An important step of that would to develop cost estimates for the proposed solution and I believe that that is what Jonathan & Lise have requested from Xavier and the Finance Team. That of course will need to be refined as we further define details of the proposal. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:53 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... I agree with Milton that the IANA costs are most likely to up if we effectively grant ICANN an IANA monopoly by erecting barriers to entry and anointing ICANN as the sole source provider. The essence of monopoly power is the ability to raise prices and keep them there due to a lack of actual or potential competition. Actual or potential competitors provide the necessary pressure to limit prices and foster innovation. (I can't say I've spent 30 years studying regulation of monopolies, but in the first 12 years of my practice, I spent at least as much time as an antitrust lawyer as I did as an IP/technology lawyer.) On a separate but related point, would it make sense to try and create a budget for Post-Transition IANA, or at least to identify the additional cost components (if any)? I find that speaking in specifics tends to eliminate many of the worst-case scenarios that still seem possible when speaking in generalities. Greg On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu<mailto:mueller@syr.edu>> wrote: I would challenge the idea that costs will inevitably go up - though it depends on the institutional structure we put into place. Costs certainly _will_ go up if we continue to see the IANA services as something that only the current operator can do and erect enormous procedural barriers to having an RFP or a change of service providers. I can tell you that from 30 years of experience studying regulation of monopolies based on cost-recovery instead of competitive models. There may already be elements of current IANA services that could be considered gold-plating. On the other hand if the review process is attentive to cost and will at least look at other bids once in a while I suspect that costs can be contained. This doesn't mean that cost is the only factor to take into consideration in selecting an IFO, of course, just to head off any cheap shots. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-<mailto:cwg-stewardship-> bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:
* Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future?
If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today?
If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher.
I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.
So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against?
Alan
At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Chuck and others, Confirmed, we requested this of Xavier and the finance team and followed up with a clarifying questions call on Wed last week. I believe a full reply from ICANN finance is imminent. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 01 June 2015 19:53 To: Greg Shatan; Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... Greg, I think it does make sense to ‘create a budget for Post-Transition IANA’. An important step of that would to develop cost estimates for the proposed solution and I believe that that is what Jonathan & Lise have requested from Xavier and the Finance Team. That of course will need to be refined as we further define details of the proposal. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 12:53 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ... I agree with Milton that the IANA costs are most likely to up if we effectively grant ICANN an IANA monopoly by erecting barriers to entry and anointing ICANN as the sole source provider. The essence of monopoly power is the ability to raise prices and keep them there due to a lack of actual or potential competition. Actual or potential competitors provide the necessary pressure to limit prices and foster innovation. (I can't say I've spent 30 years studying regulation of monopolies, but in the first 12 years of my practice, I spent at least as much time as an antitrust lawyer as I did as an IP/technology lawyer.) On a separate but related point, would it make sense to try and create a budget for Post-Transition IANA, or at least to identify the additional cost components (if any)? I find that speaking in specifics tends to eliminate many of the worst-case scenarios that still seem possible when speaking in generalities. Greg On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote: I would challenge the idea that costs will inevitably go up - though it depends on the institutional structure we put into place. Costs certainly _will_ go up if we continue to see the IANA services as something that only the current operator can do and erect enormous procedural barriers to having an RFP or a change of service providers. I can tell you that from 30 years of experience studying regulation of monopolies based on cost-recovery instead of competitive models. There may already be elements of current IANA services that could be considered gold-plating. On the other hand if the review process is attentive to cost and will at least look at other bids once in a while I suspect that costs can be contained. This doesn't mean that cost is the only factor to take into consideration in selecting an IFO, of course, just to head off any cheap shots. --MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 9:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@acm.org; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Check, are you worried about registry fees going up:
* Capriciouslty? * Because the new IANA implementation is more costly than todays, and/or may rise significantly in the future?
If the former, what makes the transition more likely to cause it than today?
If the latter, registries are front and center in supporting the structure we are now proposing, which will surely increase costs from today's model. And in the time of some future separation of IFO from PTI, something at will only happen with the support of the registries, costs may rise even higher.
I am not sure if you are asking for a guarantee that any such future changes be absorbed by ICANN. Given that registry fees are ICANN's primary source of revenue, I am not sure how that could be possible.
So could you be specific on exactly what you would like to see here and what are you trying to protect against?
Alan
At 31/05/2015 09:15 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
My fear is that if the issue of registry fees is not dealt with as part of the transition, the risk of fees being raised after transition will be much higher.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 7:11 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] registry fees & IANA costs was Re: [] Initial ...
Hi,
On 29-May-15 12:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
While I do not agree that it would be out of scope, let me put that aside and ask you a question Avri: How would you propose addressing the registry concern about the possibility of registry fees (which of course would likely be paid by registrars and ultimately registrants) be raised to cover IANA costs that are presently paid mostly via registry/registrar/registrant fees?
As part of the ICANN Budget cycle process?
Not a process I take part in, but one that I assume deals with issues such as how ICANN income and outgo are allocated. Seems like a really good exercise that I would watch with interest. I just do not see this topic as part of the IANA Stewardship Transition process, which should be satisfied with a commitment that ICANN will pay IANA's way as needed and negotiated through transitions and beyond. It is the price of ICANN holding stewardship. As between parent and ward.
The CCWG is working on the mechanisms needed to deal with ICANN budget issues going forward, these ICANN budget allocation issues do not need to lumped in with the transition itself.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Robinson -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller