Hi Tim, Yes, I probably should have explained my thoughts on that a little further. I see your point, but I would say that although the open letters to ICANN aren't official positions of the RC, if the RC's resources (the collective brain power of RC members via the RC mailing list) are being used to gather information, draft the letters, and solicit for endorsements, then I think those endorsements contained on the RC-generated (but not official position) letters should only be from RC members. Jmho Thx Richard -----Original Message----- From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] Sent: 30 July, 2007 3:03 PM To: Lau Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'; 'RC Voting Members' Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250. Thanks Richard. Points well taken, and interesting idea that I think has some merit. Regarding: "They frequently make written endorsements of issues being discussed by ICANN, signing in the name of their non member accreditations." We shouldn't forget that each registrar within a group pays an annual accreditation fee and the quarterly fixed portion of the variable fee to ICANN. The latter because very few of them, if any, qualify for foregiveness. So each registrar in a group is paying close to $6,000 annually to ICANN - plus transaction fees on top of that. As a result, I personally don't have a problem with these non-member registrars signing on to open letters to ICANN since they are not official positions of the RC. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250. From: "Lau" <richard@lau.com> Date: Mon, July 30, 2007 3:33 am To: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@gnso.icann.org>, "'RC Voting Members'" <votingmembers@registrars.beach.net> Hi Bob, I think there are two conflicting issues here: 1) "Some registrars who have multiple accreditations benefit substantially from their memberships -- but they pay only dues for one of them. They frequently make written endorsements of issues being discussed by ICANN, signing in the name of their non member accreditations." ==h Why does the RC allow use of its member list to solicit endorsements by non-member entities? If Letters are being organized on the RC list, those letters should only contain the names of RC member companies. No membership should equal: no vote, no seat at the RC table at ICANN Meetings, and no signing on submitted group letters. I say this as a paid member for a single shell registrar who could be signing for 10+ other non-member shell registrars (but I refrain from doing so). 2) "Some registrars who have multiple accreditations benefit substantially from their memberships -- but they pay only dues for one of them." =h I think "substantially" should be replaced with "microscopically". Allow me to rephrase your statement to a flip side: "Some large registrars who have large, very profitable customer bases benefit substantially from their single memberships far above other smaller registrar with small, almost non-profitable customer bases." When a letter is sent in, it is more than reasonable for the recipient to take note of and recognize the top registrars, and to ignore the others listed. Who really cares if DomainClip or multiple "! #1"-Registrars are listed? Small, unrecognized registrars only add value to these submitted letters by adding bulk to the long list of registrars. The difference between having all of the top 10 Registrars listed on a letter, and having 300 shell registrars listed is minor. In fact, having a long list of registrars on a letter where the top 10 Registrars are mixed in (read: lost) may have the unintended effect of diluting the message. Any group signed letter should be listed in descending order by the size of the domains under management. I understand that you, being a Republican, would likely be against the RC membership being based on an "annual revenue" tiered pricing, or on the number of domains managed. I am not here to suggest an exact tiered pricing structure. Merely to point out that someone with 10, 50 or 100 shell registrars does not receive 10x, 50x or 100x the benefit of membership by trotting out their additional names onto a letter. This article from "Association Management" discusses some alternatives to "annual revenue" membership dues: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0198-222446_ITM "more organizations are exploring a tiered membership structure in which membership and subsequently dues are based on membership levels or benefits packages rather than on categories determined by specific demographic criteria. "Embracing one of the fastest growing trends nationwide, more associations are turning to a tiered membership structure to replace outdated dues structures that do not communicate value to members," says Moliterno, who has worked with several organizations in their transition from a fair-share model to a tiered membership structure. She outlines these primary reasons for the switch: To give members control and choices. A tiered structure accommodates companies regardless of size (or individuals regardless of professional specialty) and ensures appropriate investment for the resulting delivery of services and products. Participants customize their memberships by selecting their levels of involvement and investment. To realign business purposes to match customer needs. A tiered membership structure allows associations to easily adapt to rapid change and significant competitive challenges because they can adjust their benefits to address new trends while adding value to their memberships at specific levels. They can also demonstrate a return on investment for members, since the tiers are segmented to match specific products and services to member needs and desires. To create one clear and concise message. Often, members say that they don't know what they receive for their dues. When shown the tiered concept, however, members appreciate the compartmentalized areas of information that they can easily digest. Thinking out loud here.. a tiered RC membership structure could differentiate along levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) such as: - Ability to submit to RC mailing list - Right to add name to RC letters (listed by level) - Seat at RC table at ICANN Meetings - microphone/right to speak at RC table - use of RC logo on website according to level - ? - ? - . These are just ideas to add to the discussion of a tiered pricing structure. I think raising the membership to $750 will cause the drop off of many small registrars. While you may view this as them "soaking the rich", it's just an economic decision. Is there $750 in value for a small registrar? Honestly, probably not. Everyone has different reasons for being a member. For me, the $250 is worth it just to have a seat for the day at the (long) RC meetings I (infrequently) attend. For $500 more, I'll just sit on the floor. ;^ ) Thx for listening, Richard Lau DomainClip.com