Hello All, For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view: (1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget (2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries). (3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee. Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees. So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go Daddy. Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our industry? If so: They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of Commerce. They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc. They need to be able to enforce their agreements. The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those issues. I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget Hello All, For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view: (1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget (2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries). (3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee. Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees. So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Tim,
From my understanding as a domain is purchased all fees/taxes whatever you want to call it will be due to ICANN at that time for all service periods. So if a customer purchases a domain for 10 years you will owe ICANN 10 times $0.xx. This is unlike in the past when you would have only owed for this year, you will now owe for all years purchased. ICANN wants their money today, not 10 years from now!
Donny
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:30 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go Daddy.
Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our industry? If so:
They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of Commerce.
They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.
They need to be able to enforce their agreements.
The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those issues.
I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Hello All,
For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view:
(1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget
(2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries).
(3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee.
Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees.
So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Donny, I rather ICANN collect it upfront rather then ask the current registrar to pay it, If a registrant has a 8 year registration with registrar A, then he moves to registrar B. Why should registrar B pay for years 2-7 ICANN fee when registrar A collected the money. The easiest solutions I see is to pay ICANN the tariff/tax at the time of collection. Jay Westerdal Name Intelligence, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Donny Simonton Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:45 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget Tim,
From my understanding as a domain is purchased all fees/taxes whatever you want to call it will be due to ICANN at that time for all service periods. So if a customer purchases a domain for 10 years you will owe ICANN 10 times $0.xx. This is unlike in the past when you would have only owed for this year, you will now owe for all years purchased. ICANN wants their money today, not 10 years from now!
Donny
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:30 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go Daddy.
Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our industry? If so:
They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of Commerce.
They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.
They need to be able to enforce their agreements.
The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those issues.
I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Hello All,
For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view:
(1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget
(2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries).
(3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee.
Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees.
So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Jay, That's exactly what we will be doing. If registrar A collects a payment for 8 years of domain registrations, they pay immediately to ICANN 8 years of fees. Then if in year 2 the customer transfers the domain to another domain registrar, the new registrar is only responsible for the 1 year transfer/renewal. Donny
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:08 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Donny, I rather ICANN collect it upfront rather then ask the current registrar to pay it, If a registrant has a 8 year registration with registrar A, then he moves to registrar B. Why should registrar B pay for years 2-7 ICANN fee when registrar A collected the money. The easiest solutions I see is to pay ICANN the tariff/tax at the time of collection.
Jay Westerdal Name Intelligence, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Donny Simonton Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:45 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Tim,
From my understanding as a domain is purchased all fees/taxes whatever you want to call it will be due to ICANN at that time for all service periods. So if a customer purchases a domain for 10 years you will owe ICANN 10 times $0.xx. This is unlike in the past when you would have only owed for this year, you will now owe for all years purchased. ICANN wants their money today, not 10 years from now!
Donny
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:30 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go Daddy.
Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our industry? If so:
They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of Commerce.
They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.
They need to be able to enforce their agreements.
The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those issues.
I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Hello All,
For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view:
(1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget
(2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries).
(3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee.
Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees.
So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Tim's point is if ICANN increases our costs.......how can we charge the registrant for the increased costs...it's too late :-( The registrant bought his domains for several years when ICANN was cheaper but if every year ICANN askes us more and more money so our margin for that domain decrease and profit and revenus projections may be confused by the fact we don't really know where we are going in term of costs. So the fees collected at the registration time takes only into account the current costs and not the future....I understand Tim's concerns in that way and I have the same. Regards, Jean-Michel Donny Simonton wrote:
Tim, From my understanding as a domain is purchased all fees/taxes whatever you want to call it will be due to ICANN at that time for all service periods. So if a customer purchases a domain for 10 years you will owe ICANN 10 times $0.xx. This is unlike in the past when you would have only owed for this year, you will now owe for all years purchased. ICANN wants their money today, not 10 years from now!
Donny
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:30 PM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org Subject: RE: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Thanks Bruce. There are some other considerations that are important to Go Daddy.
Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our industry? If so:
They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU with the Dept. of Commerce.
They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.
They need to be able to enforce their agreements.
The "magnitude" of the budget should reflect the ability to address those issues.
I would also like to have a predictable cost. Right now, I really have no idea what a 2, 5, or 10 year domain registration is going to cost me. So I have no way of appropriately passing the ICANN fees on to the registrant.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:34 PM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Some thoughts on the ICANN budget
Hello All,
For the purpose of budget discussions I suggest we look at the budget from three points of view:
(1) The relative percentages of funds allocated to particular areas (ie look at the distribution of funds) - this should be able to be set roughly within discussing the magnitude of the budget
(2) The overall magnitude of the budget - this should be looked at in the context of the available revenue (e.g from cctlds, RIRs, registrars) and the overall value of the industry (ie how much the private sector can afford) - it is easy to create a wish list assuming no limits on funds available - but we need to work out what is a reasonable magnitude for the budget (e.g as a percentage of the overall revenue of the registries).
(3) Of the revenue to be provided by registrars - how to calculate the per registrar fee.
Many in the community believe that it is registrants that provide the revenue for ICANN. I argue that this is not the case because ICANN does not invoice registrants, nor have any contractual agreement with registrants. With respect to gtlds, it is the registrars that have a contract with ICANN and who pay the fees. Alternatively ICANN has a contract with registries, for registries to pay a fee (which due to their monopoly status can easily pass onto registrars) - this is effectively the same thing as registrars paying the fees.
So in terms of gtld revenue structure ICANN has a choice: - (1) under the existing model charge registrars. This requires no contractual changes. - (2) create new model, where ICANN directly has an agreement with registrants and invoices registrants. Registrars could collect a fee on behalf of ICANN. This second model would require contractual changes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
IMHO there are two areas that the budget committee should focus on. 1) a precise definiation of a per domain fee paid to ICANN by registrars. Stop at nothing, play hard-ball, get a precise definition not a formula. 2) removal of the registry as a potential source of funds insted of the registrars, its a sore subject and it is about time our budget reps do something besides "approve" our demise. We have never once, "won" the budget debate. Every year we get nothing in return yet our fees double. are we to be proved fools this year too? -rick
participants (6)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Donny Simonton -
Jay Westerdal -
Jean-Michel Becar -
Rick Wesson -
Tim Ruiz