Tom,

I am unclear what you mean by raising the dues. Do you mean raising them higher than the proposed budget, or are you saying they should not be raised to the 750 mark that they used to be at.

As you may recall, all dues used to be 750, and we lowered them a few years back as we had built up a bit of cash.

I think now the Execom has presented a budget that shows a need for the higher dues for the spending contemplated, and the dues proposed are simply going back to what they used to be. I would also point out that at the last in person meeting of the constituency, the straw poll of going back to 750 per year was unanymously in favour of it.

I do take issue with your second principle a bit. I think there needs to be some benefits to membership in the constituency, not just voting. We made some proposals towards such an end in PR, and I think you will see that they have the effect of increasing membership as we are able to roll out better services to the Membership.

As to your proposal of tiering based on the number of names, I can tell you the Execom did indeed look at that.

The concern was brought forward by Adrian, who pointed out that some of the smaller registrars might want to pay more, and that some of the larger groups could pick one of their smaller ones. I commend Adrian for taking the high road and saying that he wants to pay the full fare, because of all the benefits he gets from the constituency. I think there are many out there that would agree that they receive more than 750 dollars worth of benefit a year.

So we decided to leave it as a flat fee, and allow someone to ask for forgiveness down to the 250 if they needed it. I think it achieves the same result, but with a more positive outlook of saying that we all gain huge benefits from being members, and also takes care of those that need a reduction.

I also supported publishing those that had asked for and been granted the reduction in price, in order to keep the larger groups such as ourselves from simply picking a small registrar and pleading poverty. I assure you we are very happy to be members, and would happily pay even more than 750 for the privledge of membership. I figured that if you published all our members, their renewal dates and what they paid, that we would be completely open and transparent about our fees, finances and collections. I still believe this may be the way to go. I believe if we can get more organized, and be more transparent about what everone's status is, we will be more succesful in attracting members.

Rob

Bob et al,

The problem with raising the RC dues, is that it will result in lower registrar participation. This is not a desirable result.

Theoretically, the following three principles represent how things are today:

First Principle: The RC constituency should represent all ICANN Accredited Registrars. We have all paid ICANN dues. Towards this end, all should be welcome to participate in discussions and endorse RC statements.

Second Principle: The RC has adopted the position that only those registrars that have paid RC dues are eligible to vote in RC elections. This has been the only area where registrars have been restricted from participating unless they have paid the dues.

Third Principle: Related registrars do not receive an additional vote in RC elections. Note: this doesn't prevent related registrars from participating or paying RC dues if they choose to do so. They simply do not get to buy another vote.

I believe these first three principles should continue to be followed. (although I think we can do more regarding the first principle.)

Proposal:

I believe a tiered dues structure makes a lot of sense for the RC. This is common in many associations. It is also the model being followed by ICANN for cctld AND registrar contributions. Here is how it could work:

1. We define a minimum dues amount that all registrars must satisfy

2. We suggest higher amounts based on ICANN names under management. Each registrar can decide whether they want to pay the minimum amount, the suggested higher amount or something in between.

3. Registrar contributions are published for all to see.

for example: Here is an example: (these numbers are completely hypothetical)

base RC fee: $250

tier 1: 0-5000 names: $300

tier 2: 5001-25,000 names: $350

tier 3: 25,000-100,000 names: $400

tier 4: 100,001-500,000 names $500

tier 5: 500,000-1,000,000 names: $600

tier 6: 1,000,001+ names: $750

I believe this sort of structure would encourage participation by more registrars. Registrars are free to pay more than their "suggested" amount.

I'm aware this makes the budgeting process a bit more difficult. But just as ICANN needs to make some assumptions in its budget about registrar contributions, I think the RC ex-com can too.

best regards,

Tom Barrett

EnCirca