icann budget position (ascio)
Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record with our position. o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN; o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN; o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations are met; o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable amount like $25.000/year; o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the current Registry contracts; and o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS initiatives. Best regards, Nikolaj Nyholm nikolajn@ascio.com
Nikolaj and All, I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry. Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is fair to ask me to pay for them. Regards, JP Vazquez
From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200 To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: halloran@icann.org, twomey@icann.org Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record with our position.
o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations are met;
o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable amount like $25.000/year;
o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the current Registry contracts; and
o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS initiatives.
Best regards,
Nikolaj Nyholm nikolajn@ascio.com
JP So I assume that "ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry" as you mention means ponying up to ICANN every time they desire? I assume you mean us, Parava Networks, an ICANN accredited Registrar since 1999 are not worhty of being one? I assume you mean I should work 12 hours days and weekends so I can pay for ICANN's travel expenses and $100k a year employees? It is not fair for me to pay for other peoples trips to Malaysia and pay aprox. $800k per ICANN meeting as established in the Budget. I can go on if you wish. Patricio Valdes Parava Networks, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of JP Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:32 AM To: Nikolaj Nyholm; registrars@dnso.org Cc: Dan Halloran; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio) Nikolaj and All, I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry. Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is fair to ask me to pay for them. Regards, JP Vazquez
From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200 To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: halloran@icann.org, twomey@icann.org Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record with our position.
o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations are met;
o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable amount like $25.000/year;
o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the current Registry contracts; and
o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS initiatives.
Best regards,
Nikolaj Nyholm nikolajn@ascio.com
Patricio, I believe you misunderstood my words. Parava Networks is obviously a company in the Registration business, regardless of the model you use, you DO registrations, you take care of your own registrations and you are the registrar of record; therefore you know you will have to respond to your customers, and you are legally liable if you screw up with their records. You accepted that responsibility and for that you are "worthy" of the "ICANN accredited" seal, and worthy of being called a "fellow registrar" and the respect of your peers. At no point I said that it is fair that the Registrars have to carry most of the weight of the budget or that ICANN can spend money at their own discretion. But I will not accept nor support the call to move everything to a per transaction fee, because this petition has nothing to do with the budget, and all to do with whom is paying for part of it, including the costs of facilitating and maintaining the accreditation of NOT INTERESTED IN REGISTERING registrars. JP
From: "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@parava.net> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:17:50 -0500 To: "'JP'" <jp@dotregistrar.com>, "'Nikolaj Nyholm'" <nikolajn@ascio.com>, <registrars@dnso.org> Cc: "'Dan Halloran'" <halloran@icann.org>, <twomey@icann.org> Subject: RE: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
JP
So I assume that "ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry" as you mention means ponying up to ICANN every time they desire? I assume you mean us, Parava Networks, an ICANN accredited Registrar since 1999 are not worhty of being one? I assume you mean I should work 12 hours days and weekends so I can pay for ICANN's travel expenses and $100k a year employees?
It is not fair for me to pay for other peoples trips to Malaysia and pay aprox. $800k per ICANN meeting as established in the Budget.
I can go on if you wish.
Patricio Valdes Parava Networks, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of JP Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:32 AM To: Nikolaj Nyholm; registrars@dnso.org Cc: Dan Halloran; twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
Nikolaj and All,
I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry.
Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is fair to ask me to pay for them.
Regards,
JP Vazquez
From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200 To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: halloran@icann.org, twomey@icann.org Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record with our position.
o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations are met;
o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable amount like $25.000/year;
o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the current Registry contracts; and
o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS initiatives.
Best regards,
Nikolaj Nyholm nikolajn@ascio.com
one question that the budget didn't answer is "how much does it cost to support the registrars?" without that answer we can't argue about "pay for use" -rick JP wrote:
Nikolaj and All,
I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry.
Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is fair to ask me to pay for them.
Regards,
JP Vazquez
From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200 To: registrars@dnso.org Cc: halloran@icann.org, twomey@icann.org Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record with our position.
o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations are met;
o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable amount like $25.000/year;
o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the current Registry contracts; and
o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS initiatives.
Best regards,
Nikolaj Nyholm nikolajn@ascio.com
Hi
the registration business at all. They will became accredited and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is fair to ask me to pay for them.
I agree with what you say. However the truth is that ICANN does not really have to bear a huge cost in maintaining THOSE Accreditations who are simply in it for the batch pool. From what I see, all these guys have ZERO domains, ZERO complaints, and they NEVER call or contact icann or utilise any of ICANNs staff resources for any doubt, query etc. in essence those registrars who simply use the batch pool are actually NO COST to ICANN. They are silent spectators and ICANN is actually making the $5k per year off them for really no cost. What I do not wish to see JP is ICANN basing its budget structure on short term revenue opportunities of a certain set of Registrars. This is a trend which seems to me to be very scary, and a precedent here could be really bad for Registrars Additionally there are many other reasons as to why the current budget is not the best for ICANN as well as the Registrars, but I have already covered that 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 --------------------------------------
participants (5)
-
Bhavin Turakhia -
JP -
Nikolaj Nyholm -
Patricio Valdes -
Rick Wesson