A straw vote would be useful on the following: "Do the Registrars support the proposed increase in fees proposed by ICANN?" Yes or No. The vote should be tabulated according to the method that would be used by ICANN. (i.e. the 66% rule). If the top 15 registrars are supporting the new budget, I would like to know. A continuing dialogue with ICANN would be helpful. I would suggest a more complete list of issues and questions be developed before the BAG meets with ICANN. Here is my list: 2. The registrars would like an agreed upon cap for any increases in the fees 3. The registrars would like specific predictable criteria developed to determine when registrar fees are to be waived by ICANN 4. Under this criteria, how many registrars are expected to be exempt? 5. Based on the waiving of fees, what is the adjusted per registrar fee expected? 6. What is ICANN's plan if other sources of revenue from cctld's and gtld registries and other sources do not materialize? 7. What are the plans for making the ICANN meetings self-funding and not a budgetitem? 8. What is the rationale for not accepting offers of in-kind support from third parties, such as CENTR? 9. Can ICANN get a bridge-loan to relieve immediate pressures? 10. What other issues should the BAG ask ICANN and report back on? Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:45 PM To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it Okay, I understand it now. Would it be Okay if the Budget Advisory Group reps took this up with Kurt and the staff instead of the ExCom? We'd ask for a formal commitment that the transaction and per-registrar fees, however those fall in or out, be capped at the agreed upon level for a 3-year period. If the other two BAG reps agree, and no one on the list objects, does it really require a vote to pursue? We should also bring this up when we all meet with Kurt again as a group. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:06 AM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it My interpretation of what Kurt said in his email tells me that it would not take much. Therefore the motion directs excom to communicate with ICANN so that when we are asked to vote on the budget (the "2/3 required" vote) that ICANN include the "cap it" commitment with the budget request that we are voting on (whatever the model and amount of that turns out to be in the end). The "cap it" commitment would be that, for the length of the budget (I think it is 3 years?), the model ($X per registrar-year and $.Y per transaction name-year) and the amount (the X and Y) does not increase. Note that this does not cap our contribution to the budget (number of registrars and number of transactions can increase or decrease). We should still retain our ability to vote again 1 and 2 years from now, even though we would be at the cap limit. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:34 AM To: 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Paul Stahura'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it What exactly is the motion directing the ExCom to do? And what mechanism will the ExCom use to accomplish it? -----Original Message----- From: Jay Westerdal [mailto:jwesterdal@nameintel.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:26 AM To: 'Paul Stahura'; 'Monte Cahn'; 'Tim Ruiz'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Cap it I second Paul's motion. Jay Westerdal Name Intelligence, Inc. http://www.nameintelligence.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 6:32 PM To: 'Monte Cahn'; 'Tim Ruiz'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: [registrars] Cap it I agree with Monte. We need to draw a line in the sand this year, regardless. I said so last year. Last time, I said, "I believe we need to make clear to ICANN now that we will not support any increase in fees to registrars." and "We need to warn ICANN now that while we may or may not support a budget increase, that the increase, if any, not be born by the registrars." (You can read the rest in our archive http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg01073.html ) We did not to that, but it is better late than never. Let's not wait yet another year. I still believe the only way we can stop these year-after-year increases is to have our own cap. Kurt said in his 5/19 email: "Where the budget ascribed to holding the 25 cent fee constant, it should also be taken as making the same commitment to the per annum fee." Regardless of the rest, we need to at least get this commitment formalized before any budget-voting happens. So I move we authorize excom to do so. Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Monte Cahn Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:56 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Well - it appears we are not left in a very good position today. I feel that just laying over and letting this happen without putting forth a firm stance on what our position is on this issue is a big mistake. Look what just happened to us as Registrars this year. What makes you think that this process will not continue next year (or in 3 years) and the year after. Let's not be afraid to make a stance with ICANN, we are being too easy on this issue. Look at the letter that Paul Kane put out. Be the squeaky wheel that needs oil! Let's draw a definite line in the sand regardless of what happens to us this year so that next year/years we do use our leverage with the registries and other sources to supplement the increase yet to come. Also we are spending way too much time away from our business complaining, disagreeing with each other based on our relative business models and size. Don't you think that ICANN knows that the top 10 Registrars control 80% of the domains today and the reason they were consulted with only them? Although I see that top 10 picture changing over the next 12 months, it is important that we all stay unified and together as a group on the future of our industry. Internet users are predicted to double again in the next 3-5 years and we can all share in the registrations and complementary services if we stay together. Just my thoughts. Monte Cahn Founder/CEO Monte@Moniker.com Monte@DomainSystems.com O - 954-984-8445 F - 954-969-9155 Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:30 PM To: ross@tucows.com; 'Monte Cahn' Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Exactly. Also, once they have this worked out where do you think that is going to leave us next year and the year after that as far as having a significant voice in this process? Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:58 AM To: Monte Cahn Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval On 5/27/2004 10:41 AM Monte Cahn noted that:
I think we are on to something here.....
Doubtful. It only requires the consent of ICANN to modify this contract. I think it would be pretty easy for the various registries to draw up a quick Christmas list of things they want in exchange for signing a revised contract that lifts these caps. I also expect that this could be done in a couple of weeks, behind closed doors and likely seal our fate permanently. The problem of the size of the budget doesn't go away no matter how many potential angles we come up with. We can either focus on that or, in my opinion, lose (big). -- -rwr "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org