Hello Bob,
Dear Colleagues: I've stayed out of this discussion till now. Here's my take:
1. ICANN should treat registrars alike, large and small.
Sounds good so far.
2. A large flat fee penalizes small registrars. A fee system based upon numbers of domains registered, with minimal fixed fees, is more equitable.
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names. Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars. The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
3. More of ICANN's resources are expended upon the larger registrars.
I certainly have never used any ICANN resources to resolve an issue. In fact generally I make available my personal time to help out with policy development. I have never been contacted over a compliance issue either. At this stage there is no evidence either way whether ICANN spends more on small or large registrars. Perhaps ICANN could answer this question. I suspect that it may be some large registrars and some small registrars that cause most of the issues (ie size is not the issue, the behaviour of the registrar is the issue). Regards, Bruce
At 06:39 PM 5/25/2004, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
2. A large flat fee penalizes small registrars. A fee system based upon numbers of domains registered, with minimal fixed fees, is more equitable.
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Dear Bruce: But the transaction fee I propose would follow the present practice, same for all registrars. Regards, BobC
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment. Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process. This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector. this isn't what the green paper advocated. -rick
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars. Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry, If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote. sounds like a coupé. -rick On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick, I do not think is market share, I believe is funds paid. Wouldn't that change with the proposed model? JP
From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT) To: Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com> Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
Larry,
If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote.
sounds like a coupé.
-rick
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote.
* With the NEW proposed budget this number I think is around 30. I havent calculated this figure. Just heard it. If however 2 of the top ten do not agree to this budget then the number automatically increases from 30 to say 40 or probably even more. * If the budget is NOT approved by the Registrars then the money must be collected from the Registries. This is an important clause for us to focus on too, since the Regsitries have a CAP on their fee collected bhavin
Actually, Rick, that is not the case this year. In past years, you would be correct. But this year, the introduction of the minimum fee means that more registrars need to vote YES for ICANN to get what it wants. ICANN needs 66% by MONEY PAID to ICANN by REGISTRARS, not by number of domains under registration. In the past, when the entire amount owned by registrars was calculated based on the number of domains a registrar had, then it was a direct relationship. But this year, because of the separate minimum fee for a registrar, the money paid now becomes a much higher percentage for the overall pie for the small registrars. When you couple that with the fact that ICANN needs 66% to be proactive and accept things, it could be hard for them to reach this year. A registrar that does nothing, counts as a NO vote against them. So if you figure that most registrars don't even participate in the constituency, and there is a fair number of people against the current proposal, it is entirely possible that the Registries will be forced to pay this year. When you couple that with the fact that the Registries have a fee cap provision, such an occurrence would lead to ICANN's budget being very reduced from what they have asked for. It might even start them in earnest looking for other sources of revenue <grin>. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Rick Wesson Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:24 PM To: Larry Erlich Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget. Larry, If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote. sounds like a coupé. -rick On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small
registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob, Just to correct you assement about the registries, In fact the registries are not forced to pay in case of the registars are not paying. But The registries can be forced to collect the money from the registrars to give it to ICANN. So the registries contract are really better than our contract: they have a cap fee no more than 15% per year increase and they have provisions to make us paying our due to ICANN so they won't have to pay for us. I think Rick already said that: may be it's time to renegociate our contract with ICANN. Jean-Michel Rob Hall wrote:
Actually, Rick, that is not the case this year.
In past years, you would be correct. But this year, the introduction of the minimum fee means that more registrars need to vote YES for ICANN to get what it wants.
ICANN needs 66% by MONEY PAID to ICANN by REGISTRARS, not by number of domains under registration. In the past, when the entire amount owned by registrars was calculated based on the number of domains a registrar had, then it was a direct relationship.
But this year, because of the separate minimum fee for a registrar, the money paid now becomes a much higher percentage for the overall pie for the small registrars.
When you couple that with the fact that ICANN needs 66% to be proactive and accept things, it could be hard for them to reach this year. A registrar that does nothing, counts as a NO vote against them.
So if you figure that most registrars don't even participate in the constituency, and there is a fair number of people against the current proposal, it is entirely possible that the Registries will be forced to pay this year.
When you couple that with the fact that the Registries have a fee cap provision, such an occurrence would lead to ICANN's budget being very reduced from what they have asked for. It might even start them in earnest looking for other sources of revenue <grin>.
Rob.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Rick Wesson Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:24 PM To: Larry Erlich Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
Larry,
If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote.
sounds like a coupé.
-rick
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small
registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Michel, Yes, you are correct that the Registries can collect some money from us if they have to pay. BUT They have a CAP on what they pay to ICANN. They can only collect and pass on to ICANN so much, and it is much less than what ICANN wants from us. You are also correct, that CAP can go up only 15% per year, but it starts far lower than what the budget is this year. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Michel Becar [mailto:jmbecar@gmo.jp] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:29 AM To: Rob Hall; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Rob, Just to correct you assement about the registries, In fact the registries are not forced to pay in case of the registars are not paying. But The registries can be forced to collect the money from the registrars to give it to ICANN. So the registries contract are really better than our contract: they have a cap fee no more than 15% per year increase and they have provisions to make us paying our due to ICANN so they won't have to pay for us. I think Rick already said that: may be it's time to renegociate our contract with ICANN. Jean-Michel Rob Hall wrote:
Actually, Rick, that is not the case this year.
In past years, you would be correct. But this year, the introduction of the minimum fee means that more registrars need to vote YES for ICANN to get what it wants.
ICANN needs 66% by MONEY PAID to ICANN by REGISTRARS, not by number of domains under registration. In the past, when the entire amount owned by registrars was calculated based on the number of domains a registrar had, then it was a direct relationship.
But this year, because of the separate minimum fee for a registrar, the money paid now becomes a much higher percentage for the overall pie for the small registrars.
When you couple that with the fact that ICANN needs 66% to be proactive and accept things, it could be hard for them to reach this year. A registrar that does nothing, counts as a NO vote against them.
So if you figure that most registrars don't even participate in the constituency, and there is a fair number of people against the current proposal, it is entirely possible that the Registries will be forced to pay this year.
When you couple that with the fact that the Registries have a fee cap provision, such an occurrence would lead to ICANN's budget being very reduced from what they have asked for. It might even start them in earnest looking for other sources of revenue <grin>.
Rob.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Rick Wesson Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:24 PM To: Larry Erlich Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
Larry,
If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote.
sounds like a coupé.
-rick
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small
registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
I think we are on to something here..... Not to say "I told you so" but I suggested this idea more than 9 months ago when we were initially discussing the budget impact on registrars but my idea was shot down as I was told that we had no leverage or decision in what was going to happen. It now appears that we do have some leverage now? 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: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:01 AM To: Jean-Michel Becar; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Jean-Michel, Yes, you are correct that the Registries can collect some money from us if they have to pay. BUT They have a CAP on what they pay to ICANN. They can only collect and pass on to ICANN so much, and it is much less than what ICANN wants from us. You are also correct, that CAP can go up only 15% per year, but it starts far lower than what the budget is this year. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Michel Becar [mailto:jmbecar@gmo.jp] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:29 AM To: Rob Hall; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Rob, Just to correct you assement about the registries, In fact the registries are not forced to pay in case of the registars are not paying. But The registries can be forced to collect the money from the registrars to give it to ICANN. So the registries contract are really better than our contract: they have a cap fee no more than 15% per year increase and they have provisions to make us paying our due to ICANN so they won't have to pay for us. I think Rick already said that: may be it's time to renegociate our contract with ICANN. Jean-Michel Rob Hall wrote:
Actually, Rick, that is not the case this year.
In past years, you would be correct. But this year, the introduction of the minimum fee means that more registrars need to vote YES for ICANN to get what it wants.
ICANN needs 66% by MONEY PAID to ICANN by REGISTRARS, not by number of domains under registration. In the past, when the entire amount owned by registrars was calculated based on the number of domains a registrar had, then it was a direct relationship.
But this year, because of the separate minimum fee for a registrar, the money paid now becomes a much higher percentage for the overall pie for the small registrars.
When you couple that with the fact that ICANN needs 66% to be proactive and accept things, it could be hard for them to reach this year. A registrar that does nothing, counts as a NO vote against them.
So if you figure that most registrars don't even participate in the constituency, and there is a fair number of people against the current proposal, it is entirely possible that the Registries will be forced to pay this year.
When you couple that with the fact that the Registries have a fee cap provision, such an occurrence would lead to ICANN's budget being very reduced from what they have asked for. It might even start them in earnest looking for other sources of revenue <grin>.
Rob.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Rick Wesson Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:24 PM To: Larry Erlich Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN budget.
Larry,
If Kurt circulated the budget amung the top 15 that would also be enough registrars to approve the budget as approval is done with market share, not the one entity one vote.
sounds like a coupé.
-rick
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Larry Erlich wrote:
Rick Wesson wrote:
Bruce,
A large transaction fee penalises registrars with many names.
Every registrar paying the same fee would be fair too and would meet your criteria no.1. It would however make it difficult for small
registrars.
The key is to find a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
At issue is the fact that ICANN as the "technical administrator" will soon need to review all registrars financial to determine who falls on which side of the balance point. ICANN currently has no facility for the tax payers to challenge their determination, if you happen to disagree with ICANN their assessment.
Furthermore, learning today that the budget was circulated among the top 10 registrars
I thought Kurt said 15 but I also was upset that this happened. This sounds like a "what is it going to take to get you guys onboard" outreach.
certinaly does not create an aura of an "open and transparent" budget process.
It is surprising that he did not get response from all the 15 registrars. I wonder what the email that he sent looked like to be ignored by what appeared to be several registrars.
Larry Erlich
This whole budgets gets ICANN one step closer to becoming an international Tax Assessor and Tax Collector.
this isn't what the green paper advocated.
-rick
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
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
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).
I agree completely. Ross, will TuCows be sending feedback to ICANN in the budget-comments forum? It would be nice to see responses by all the Registrars. Speaking of feedback, the ccTLDs are also pushing back on their portion of the funding in this budget. See the following posting from Paul Kane: http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-comments/msg00007.html Mike Lampson The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
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
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
Monte, I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget. Our leverage and/or opportunity to affect the budget is because of this vote. After ICANN has worked its way around that once, I believe our voice may be drastically diminished from then on. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@moniker.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:56 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
My email was not directed to you specifically, it is just to lay a foundation about this issue that we continue to go around and around since it was released. I feel that the registries should be paying more...after all, they are far more profitable than all of us and we are their customer. I said this before and if they have a cap on what they can charge us, then good. Let them raise with caution. If their cap to us is only 15% then our cost goes up $.09 per domain (or less) vs. $.18.... None of us win with this increase. The registries still win with the increase. 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: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:34 PM To: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Monte, I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget. Our leverage and/or opportunity to affect the budget is because of this vote. After ICANN has worked its way around that once, I believe our voice may be drastically diminished from then on. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@moniker.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:56 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
Monte, As Ross pointed out, that 15% cap will not be difficult to increase. If we start down that path with the 15% cap as our goal, we will be disappointed. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@moniker.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:44 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval My email was not directed to you specifically, it is just to lay a foundation about this issue that we continue to go around and around since it was released. I feel that the registries should be paying more...after all, they are far more profitable than all of us and we are their customer. I said this before and if they have a cap on what they can charge us, then good. Let them raise with caution. If their cap to us is only 15% then our cost goes up $.09 per domain (or less) vs. $.18.... None of us win with this increase. The registries still win with the increase. 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: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:34 PM To: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Monte, I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget. Our leverage and/or opportunity to affect the budget is because of this vote. After ICANN has worked its way around that once, I believe our voice may be drastically diminished from then on. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@moniker.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:56 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
Tim, I just want to point out that we are already out of the process. If we were involved we would have had more say in the development of the budget and not be presented with a near final draft. Our vote will have no impact on our "involvement, in ICANN" -rick Tim Ruiz wrote:
Monte,
I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget.
Rick, Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I am aware of. And in our dealings with them they have been more open and responsive to input than the previous *ruling party* by leaps and bounds. Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars in subsequent years budget formulations. We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:02 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Tim, I just want to point out that we are already out of the process. If we were involved we would have had more say in the development of the budget and not be presented with a near final draft. Our vote will have no impact on our "involvement, in ICANN" -rick Tim Ruiz wrote:
Monte,
I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget.
On 5/28/2004 10:11 AM Tim Ruiz noted that:
We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully.
I couldn't agree more with this approach Tim. Registrars have little or no leverage in this environment and if we aren't prudent, we will quickly squander what we do have. If we can continue to make modest incremental improvements to the overall infrastructure, process and framework while working to get the overall budget down, I think we've done what we can while preserving what we have. Its not a perfect approach, but I really don't see any other outcome that befits our collective interests. -- -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
Its just one area we can explore, there are others. I disagree with any of you that say we do not have leverage with ICANN or the registries. We don't have leverage if we are not together. We have more than enough leverage if we are together - THE MAJORITY OF FEES ARE COMING FROM US FOLKS! Let's set some new rules of engagement and boundaries. 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: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:11 AM To: 'Rick Wesson' Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Rick, Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I am aware of. And in our dealings with them they have been more open and responsive to input than the previous *ruling party* by leaps and bounds. Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars in subsequent years budget formulations. We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:02 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Tim, I just want to point out that we are already out of the process. If we were involved we would have had more say in the development of the budget and not be presented with a near final draft. Our vote will have no impact on our "involvement, in ICANN" -rick Tim Ruiz wrote:
Monte,
I never meant to suggest that we shouldn't be firm. I am concerned that if we are not careful we may take ourselves out of the process altogether. All we are really doing when we vote is deciding whether we want to pay ICANN directly, or through the registries, we do not really *approve* the budget.
On 5/28/2004 10:33 AM Monte Cahn noted that:
Let's set some new rules of engagement and boundaries.
Agreed - but we should approach this as a longer-term issue that isn't likely to help us resolve our current pickle. -- -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
Again - we do not have to be that delicate in setting up these boundaries and let ICANN and the Registries know where we stand. It's OK to stand firm on what we will and will not accept as a unified group of Registrars protecting our present and future financial situation. We should not be the "whipping boy" all the time but act as professionals leading our industry thinking. I do not let this happen in my business and I know that most of you don't let it happen in yours......so let's not let it happen period. 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: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:39 AM To: Monte Cahn Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval On 5/28/2004 10:33 AM Monte Cahn noted that:
Let's set some new rules of engagement and boundaries.
Agreed - but we should approach this as a longer-term issue that isn't likely to help us resolve our current pickle. -- -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
Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I am aware of. And in our
I would not call asking top 15 registrars as an outreach. I would call it a selective segment approach.
dealings with them they have been more open and responsive to
I would use the word responsive if CHANGES ARE MADE after all our discussion. Its too early to use the word responsive
Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars in subsequent years budget formulations.
And have you considered the fact that there may not BE TOO MANY REGISTRARS to OUTREACH next year if this budget remains the way it is?
We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully.
"long term" is precisely the idea we have in our mind too Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
Bhavin, In previous years I don't think even the top 5 registrars were contacted during the budget formulation process. I know that Go Daddy was never contacted prior to this year. So I truly believe the ICANN staff made a concerted effort to improve on that. Still not perfect, a wider range of registrars should be included, but still much better. And actually, the feedback that they received from the registrars they did contact, as well as other stakeholders, resulted in significant reductions in the budget, twice. They listened! If we can reach a reasonable agreement on how best to deal with the issues being discussed on this list and offer constructive suggestions, I believe the staff will be very interested and responsive. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:19 AM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Rick Wesson' Cc: 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I am aware of. And in our
I would not call asking top 15 registrars as an outreach. I would call it a selective segment approach.
dealings with them they have been more open and responsive to
I would use the word responsive if CHANGES ARE MADE after all our discussion. Its too early to use the word responsive
Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars in subsequent years budget formulations.
And have you considered the fact that there may not BE TOO MANY REGISTRARS to OUTREACH next year if this budget remains the way it is?
We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully.
"long term" is precisely the idea we have in our mind too Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
Tim, what you experenced as "outreach" is not how those that were not contacted percieve the same act. ICANN is preported to the "open and transparent" standard -- when ICANN contacts the largest of registrars regarding a budget that HARMS smaller registrars that, my friend, is not outreach. -rick On Fri, 28 May 2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Bhavin,
In previous years I don't think even the top 5 registrars were contacted during the budget formulation process. I know that Go Daddy was never contacted prior to this year. So I truly believe the ICANN staff made a concerted effort to improve on that. Still not perfect, a wider range of registrars should be included, but still much better.
And actually, the feedback that they received from the registrars they did contact, as well as other stakeholders, resulted in significant reductions in the budget, twice. They listened!
If we can reach a reasonable agreement on how best to deal with the issues being discussed on this list and offer constructive suggestions, I believe the staff will be very interested and responsive.
Rick, I realize the perception is different. For our part, we have no interest in harming smaller registrars. We seem to be competing very well without any such underhandedness. And there was never any hint of that concept in any discussion I was a part of. I see no benefit to ICANN to pursue such an idea either. As I said, I agree that the outreach and the process overall could still be improved. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and this year the ICANN staff made considerable efforts to do better with this process. And the process is not over yet. Kurt seems very interested in the concerns expressed and willing to entertain further suggestions and advice. We should give him and the rest of the staff the benefit of the doubt and concentrate on reasonable alternatives that we can all live with. But if we take steps that completely cut ourselves out of the process, we only have ourselves to blame. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:00 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Monte Cahn'; ross@tucows.com; 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval Tim, what you experenced as "outreach" is not how those that were not contacted percieve the same act. ICANN is preported to the "open and transparent" standard -- when ICANN contacts the largest of registrars regarding a budget that HARMS smaller registrars that, my friend, is not outreach. -rick On Fri, 28 May 2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Bhavin,
In previous years I don't think even the top 5 registrars were contacted during the budget formulation process. I know that Go Daddy was never contacted prior to this year. So I truly believe the ICANN staff made a concerted effort to improve on that. Still not perfect, a wider range of registrars should be included, but still much better.
And actually, the feedback that they received from the registrars they did contact, as well as other stakeholders, resulted in significant reductions in the budget, twice. They listened!
If we can reach a reasonable agreement on how best to deal with the issues being discussed on this list and offer constructive suggestions, I believe the staff will be very interested and responsive.
ICANN certainly hasn't undertaken an "impact study" to determine exactly what would happen to different registrars when the budget is changed. Or what costs would increase for registrants. Had they done that they would be in a better position to justify making changes. An analogy is, before the government undertakes building a road there are various impact studies that are commissioned. "This is the benefit but 4 businesses will be destroyed as well as 20 houses". (Then the fighting begins of course.) In this case of course ICANN is flying blind in this process without knowing the impact. Larry Erlich Bhavin Turakhia wrote:
Was the process perfect this year? No. Kurt admitted that himself. But the ICANN staff engaged in more outreach this year than in any previous year I am aware of. And in our
I would not call asking top 15 registrars as an outreach. I would call it a selective segment approach.
dealings with them they have been more open and responsive to
I would use the word responsive if CHANGES ARE MADE after all our discussion. Its too early to use the word responsive
Our vote may not affect our involvement in the ICANN process overall, but I am convinced it could certainly affect the level of outreach to registrars in subsequent years budget formulations.
And have you considered the fact that there may not BE TOO MANY REGISTRARS to OUTREACH next year if this budget remains the way it is?
We should think our response through, and its long term impact, very carefully.
"long term" is precisely the idea we have in our mind too
Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (12)
-
Bhavin Turakhia -
Bruce Tonkin -
Jean-Michel Becar -
JP -
Larry Erlich -
Mike Lampson -
Monte Cahn -
Rick Wesson -
Rob Hall -
Robert F. Connelly -
Ross Wm. Rader -
Tim Ruiz