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.”
==è 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.”
=è 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
From:
owner-votingmembers@registrars.beach.net
[mailto:owner-votingmembers@registrars.beach.net] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: 30 July, 2007 1:19 AM
To: Registrars Constituency; RC
Voting Members
Subject: [RC Voting] Dues of $750
with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.
Dear Members:
In my prior posting, I mentioned Tim Ruiz and
Adrian Kinderis. It was only because they each made constructive
proposals on the dues issue and both proposals "had some meat on
them".
Tim proposed a tiered dues structure.
My comment was that I'm a long time Republican and don't like this idea of
"soaking the rich".
The dialog was productive.
I stand solidly behind Tim and Adrian in the present election for GNSO
representative!!!
My posting of this morning was a thought that came to me overnight. 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.
Here is an example of such a posting:
Subject: [registrars] Final list of companies supporting the
statement
At 02:05 PM 11/25/2005 Friday -0500, Jennifer Ross-Carriere wrote:
Forgot us - NameScout Corp. et al [1]
Jen
Jennifer A. Ross-Carrire
General Counsel and Director of Policy
Momentous.ca Corporation [2]
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org
[
mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:13 PM
To: registrars@gnso.icann.org
Please let me know if I am missing anyone. I intend to send the statement to
Vint shortly
! #1 Host
! #1 Host
! #1 Host
!!! $0 CostDomains
Aaaq
AAAQ Inc
Ace of Domains
Active 24 [10]
Ascio
AvidDomains
Blue Razor
Bulkregister
BulkRegister [15 duplicate?]
CoolHandle Hosting
CORE
CSIRegistry
Directi [20]
Domain Bank
Domain Contender
Domain Name Sales Inc
DomainClip
DomainHip [25]
Domainpeople
DomainPeople Inc
Domains Only
DomainSystems, Inc.
DotRegister [30]
Dotster
EasyDNS
Encirca
Enom
EPAG [35]
GMO
GoDaddy
Hosting.com
Intercosmos
Joker.com [40]
Key Systems
Key-Systems [dup?]
Misk.com
Moniker & Other Registrars [45]
Moniker Online Services
Name Intelligence, Inc
Name.com
Namebay [50]
Namesecure
Network Soln
Nominalia
RallyDomains
Register.com [55]
Schlund+Partner
Spot Domain LLC
SRSPlus
Tucows [60]
Vivid domains
Wild West Domains [62]
Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, Chairman & CEO
Directi
end quote:
I added the square brackets. We did not have 62 members in November last
year. Many members who were in good standing at the time did not
"sign" the list.
Some members of Excom have spoken about "free riders" among
registrars.
Would anyone object if I pointed to some rides above who have never paid any
dues?
Regards, BobC
2007-2008
Review Period: 30 Days
Income & Assets
Current Assets (Bank Account)
$37,672.31
Proposed Dues $750.00
Number of Members 50 $37,500.00
Proposed Reduced Fees-1 $250.00
Number of Members w/reduced fees 10 $2,500.00
$75,172.31
Expenses
Administrative Support-2
$15,000.00
Professional Support-3
$30,000.00
Technical Expenses-4
$4,000.00
Meeting Expenses-5
$5,000.00
$54,000.00
Expected Ending Balance
$21,172.31