Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
I doubt that Moniker does this as a benevolent way to fund ICANN. Multiple accreditations allow them (perhaps among other things) them to pick up more dropped names quickly, overcoming the rules some registries have in place regarding the number (or rate) of pickups of dropped names. My understanding is that some registries (.org in particular) place additional limits on drop-catching, but I don't recall the details. Alan At 02/04/2012 01:25 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Wow! This is very interesting. Why somebody will pay ICANN $436k for a no return on investment?
-ed
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com < gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
(Apologies for list cross-posts)
Folks,
Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what appears to be a new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and WHOIS) cannot be enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names.
This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these basic components on their websites (some had no website at all). Compliance stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in question had no domains yet.
In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is that Registrars should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it would seem a Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these requirements not the presence of domain names.
One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for several years and possibly since they were accredited. This Registrar is a Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear independent, now it seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can simply become "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers each year, and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to discuss COI.
Thanks, Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com
617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, ISBN:1118062418 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization. It is a Sword of Damocles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:40:02 To: Eduardo Diaz<eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>; Garth Bruen at Knujon com<gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: LACRALO discussion list<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem I doubt that Moniker does this as a benevolent way to fund ICANN. Multiple accreditations allow them (perhaps among other things) them to pick up more dropped names quickly, overcoming the rules some registries have in place regarding the number (or rate) of pickups of dropped names. My understanding is that some registries (.org in particular) place additional limits on drop-catching, but I don't recall the details. Alan At 02/04/2012 01:25 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
Wow! This is very interesting. Why somebody will pay ICANN $436k for a no return on investment?
-ed
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com < gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
(Apologies for list cross-posts)
Folks,
Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what appears to be a new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and WHOIS) cannot be enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names.
This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these basic components on their websites (some had no website at all). Compliance stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in question had no domains yet.
In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is that Registrars should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it would seem a Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these requirements not the presence of domain names.
One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for several years and possibly since they were accredited. This Registrar is a Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear independent, now it seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can simply become "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers each year, and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to discuss COI.
Thanks, Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com
617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, ISBN:1118062418 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization.
Given ICANN's large reserve account (if they haven't speculated it all away with bad investments) and the generally increasing income from everything else, I wouldn't worry too much about a 4% one time drop. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
But it would be a permanent drop, not a single-year event. -------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:13 AM To: <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization.
Given ICANN's large reserve account (if they haven't speculated it all away with bad investments) and the generally increasing income from everything else, I wouldn't worry too much about a 4% one time drop.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
My understanding of 501K and Non profits in Canada that the reserve is designated for specific mandated objectives and not for operations On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization.
Given ICANN's large reserve account (if they haven't speculated it all away with bad investments) and the generally increasing income from everything else, I wouldn't worry too much about a 4% one time drop.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve? -------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:13 AM To: <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization.
Given ICANN's large reserve account (if they haven't speculated it all away with bad investments) and the generally increasing income from everything else, I wouldn't worry too much about a 4% one time drop.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve?
They publish the numbers: https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else. R's, John
Ok, that's a fair amount. However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate? I'm not debating, I'm really just trying to play it all out. -------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:29 PM To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve?
They publish the numbers:
https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html
Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else.
R's, John
Ignoring that revenues are generally increasing and will so perhaps greatly with new gTLDs, budgets are always supposed to be set based on projected revenue. If ICANN had to constrain its budget some, that would be exactly what some folks say it needs anyway. Alan At 04/04/2012 10:17 AM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
Ok, that's a fair amount.
However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate?
I'm not debating, I'm really just trying to play it all out.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:29 PM To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve?
They publish the numbers:
https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html
Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else.
R's, John
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
With the amount of cash flowing into ICANN this month due to the applications for new TLDs, a substantial part of which is earmarked for potential legal issues, and another large batch will not be used for a long time due to the way the batching process is set up, I honestly would not worry too much about the reserves. Also bear in mind that each new registry will contribute another USD 25k to ICANN annually (at a minimum). For those registrars holding multiple accredited registrars, their business models usually depend on these accreditations, at least partially, so there would be little to no incentive for those registrars to torpedo their own business models just to punish ICANN a little... Finally, if these registrars decided to cancel their multiple accreditations, ICANN would probably able to adapt to the decrease in funding in time before the reserves run out. Volker
Ok, that's a fair amount.
However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate?
I'm not debating, I'm really just trying to play it all out.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine"<johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:29 PM To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com"<gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list"<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss"<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve? They publish the numbers:
https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html
Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else.
R's, John
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I haven't done the math on this, but I suspect the transaction fees would be worth more to ICANN overall than the accreditation fees And also the figures that have been used in this thread make a dangerous assumption - they're assuming that the accreditations are being billed at the full price. If they're "small" they wouldn't be Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
The RAA states accreditations are $4000 US per year. Why and how does one get a discount for additional accreditations? -------------------------------------------------- From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.ie> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:50 AM To: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Cc: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
I haven't done the math on this, but I suspect the transaction fees would be worth more to ICANN overall than the accreditation fees
And also the figures that have been used in this thread make a dangerous assumption - they're assuming that the accreditations are being billed at the full price. If they're "small" they wouldn't be
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
The concern from my side isn't the revenue issue, but why these registrars are not being kept to the same public disclosure requirements (etc) as others simply because they haven't registered a domain yet. The revenue discussion, to me, merely attempts to describe why ICANN is not acting on these entities, almost suggesting a level of dependence that is buying its silence. IMO this is not relevant to the policy issue at hand. - Evan On 4 April 2012 10:50, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie>wrote:
I haven't done the math on this, but I suspect the transaction fees would be worth more to ICANN overall than the accreditation fees
And also the figures that have been used in this thread make a dangerous assumption - they're assuming that the accreditations are being billed at the full price. If they're "small" they wouldn't be
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
On 4 Apr 2012, at 16:24, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The concern from my side isn't the revenue issue, but why these registrars are not being kept to the same public disclosure requirements (etc) as others simply because they haven't registered a domain yet.
As a registrar I cannot publish terms etc., for registration in a TLD for which I am not contracted with the registry. And the "simply" is a very big difference. You also can't get setup for data escrow if you don't have any names registered (as far as I know - this may have changed)
The revenue discussion, to me, merely attempts to describe why ICANN is not acting on these entities, almost suggesting a level of dependence that is buying its silence. IMO this is not relevant to the policy issue at hand.
- Evan
On 4 April 2012 10:50, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote: I haven't done the math on this, but I suspect the transaction fees would be worth more to ICANN overall than the accreditation fees
And also the figures that have been used in this thread make a dangerous assumption - they're assuming that the accreditations are being billed at the full price. If they're "small" they wouldn't be
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.biz http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 4 April 2012 11:45, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie>wrote:
As a registrar I cannot publish terms etc., for registration in a TLD for which I am not contracted with the registry.
No, but you can (and imo should be compelled to) publish your own details as an ICANN contracted registrar as a minimum requirement, regardless of the particular additional rules demanded by each TLD for which you sell domains.
And the "simply" is a very big difference.
Only in the minds (and business models) of those who wish to exploit the distinction. You also can't get setup for data escrow if you don't have any names
registered (as far as I know - this may have changed)
What's that got to do with anything? - Evan
I have two words for you that may help in this discussion:
As a registrar I cannot publish terms etc., for registration in a TLD for which I am not contracted with the registry.
No, but you can (and imo should be compelled to) publish your own details as an ICANN contracted registrar as a minimum requirement, regardless of the particular additional rules demanded by each TLD for which you sell domains.
Next RAA... Volker
On 4 Apr 2012, at 16:24, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The concern from my side isn't the revenue issue, but why these registrars are not being kept to the same public disclosure requirements (etc) as others simply because they haven't registered a domain yet.
As I said in an earlier post, the issue is not whether they have registered a domain "yet", but whether they are in the business of registering domains and how. Posting policies and such on the web is only required if you do business that way. For instance, I have not checked, but I suspect that Mark Monitor, a large registrar dealing with corporate customers probably does not offer online registration and if so, is not required to post details (or even have a web site if they chose). Having a Whois service is moot if there are no domains to look up at all. On 4 Apr 2012, Garth Bruen wrote:
So what is that "business model" exactly. Folks on this forum don't know the details. Thanks
As Volker implied, it has to do with "drop-catching. More accreditations means more simultaneous attempts to pick up deleted names for resale or monetization. See my earlier post - http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2012-April/005553.html. If you haven't read it, take a look at David Kesmodel's book The Domain Game: How people Get Rich from Internet Domain Names. It is 4 years old and therefore surely out of date, but interesting reading nonetheless. Alan
So what is that "business model" exactly. Folks on this forum don't know the details. Thanks -------------------------------------------------- From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:39 AM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
With the amount of cash flowing into ICANN this month due to the applications for new TLDs, a substantial part of which is earmarked for potential legal issues, and another large batch will not be used for a long time due to the way the batching process is set up, I honestly would not worry too much about the reserves. Also bear in mind that each new registry will contribute another USD 25k to ICANN annually (at a minimum).
For those registrars holding multiple accredited registrars, their business models usually depend on these accreditations, at least partially, so there would be little to no incentive for those registrars to torpedo their own business models just to punish ICANN a little...
Finally, if these registrars decided to cancel their multiple accreditations, ICANN would probably able to adapt to the decrease in funding in time before the reserves run out.
Volker
Ok, that's a fair amount.
However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate?
I'm not debating, I'm really just trying to play it all out.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine"<johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:29 PM To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com"<gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list"<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss"<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve? They publish the numbers:
https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html
Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else.
R's, John
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I would assume that this would be domain backordering services in the most cases. The more accreditations a backordering service manages, the better the chances to be able to provide the customer with his backordered domain name at the time of the drop. Volker
So what is that "business model" exactly. Folks on this forum don't know the details. Thanks
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:39 AM To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
With the amount of cash flowing into ICANN this month due to the applications for new TLDs, a substantial part of which is earmarked for potential legal issues, and another large batch will not be used for a long time due to the way the batching process is set up, I honestly would not worry too much about the reserves. Also bear in mind that each new registry will contribute another USD 25k to ICANN annually (at a minimum).
For those registrars holding multiple accredited registrars, their business models usually depend on these accreditations, at least partially, so there would be little to no incentive for those registrars to torpedo their own business models just to punish ICANN a little...
Finally, if these registrars decided to cancel their multiple accreditations, ICANN would probably able to adapt to the decrease in funding in time before the reserves run out.
Volker
Ok, that's a fair amount.
However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate?
I'm not debating, I'm really just trying to play it all out.
-------------------------------------------------- From: "John R. Levine"<johnl@iecc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:29 PM To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com"<gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "LACRALO discussion list"<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "NA Discuss"<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
John, do you know offhand how much is in the reserve? They publish the numbers:
https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-reserveB.html
Looks to me like it currently contains about $50 million. In answer to another comment, it really is a reserve, not a dedicated fund or anything else.
R's, John
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
However, in this hypothetical the reserve would be chipped away at year after year. How long would that be appropriate?
Unless ICANN is wilfully stupid (yes, I know) in subsequent years they'd adjust the budget to match the anticipated revenue, as they have done every year since they were founded. R's, John
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com -
gbruen＠knujon.com
-
Glenn McKnight -
John R. Levine -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Volker Greimann