I agree with Ross here. We all signed contracts that say if we vote "no" to paying ICANN... then we pay anyway (via the registries). We all knew what we were getting into when we signed. As I've said more than a few times over the years, the only long-term solution (without changes to the current contracts) is for alternative sources (non-registrar, non-registry) to pony up more funds or for ICANN to spend less money. I've believed for a long time that it will be easier (better?) to solve the problem of getting alternative sources of funds (address registries, ccTLD, other registry services, governments, large companies, TLD auctions, whatever) than the other, in my opinion, harder (because we want ICANN to be stronger) problem to solve (ICANN doing less by spending less). -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:25 AM To: Jay Westerdal Cc: 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment On 5/18/2004 2:20 PM Jay Westerdal noted that:
It is about time Registries pay there fair share.
The registries aren't the problem. The address registries, ccTLDs and other under-contributing parties are. Let's stay focused on where the real problems are. I don't see the registries as being the culprits here - or as a real source of alternate funding that won't come out of our pockets anyways... -- -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