Dear Registrars: In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*. It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers. The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice? I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-( Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-} Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc. * Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see whose "names are on the blotter";-} Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Damn - I just realised that I missed the confrence call ..... It was 4 am instead of 4 pm ..... I am so naturally used to attending conference calls in the middle of the night I did not anticipate any to be so early :) Shux ..... Who can I call to fill me in on the details 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 --------------------------------------
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:49 PM To: Registrars Constituency Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN
Dear Registrars:
In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*.
It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
* Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see whose "names are on the blotter";-}
Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Dear Bob, I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has. In other words in reality the registrars with more domain names to not cost ICANN more money than smaller registrars with less registrations. Since there seems to be no interrelation to the amount of domains in this regard and on the other hand certainly is no relation to domains on the policy cost site I would like to raise the question why the fees should be domain related at all. This might not be a very popular viewpoint but shouldn't it ,as a matter of fairness and equal opportunity, be the same fee for all of us if we all receive the same service? In theory I do not really see why someone with a successful (or different) business model should be punished by having to pay more for the same service than anyone else. The way almost every tax system is build to take up this analogy again is that the ones with more contribute more to the public good than the others but it is always predictable and there is always a cap. The system I would like to see only relies on caped fixed fees which might even be calculated by the amount of registrations held but has no additional variable or transaction fees. Such a system could look like a ordinary tax table: These figures are just examples. I randomly picked numbers .-) 0 - 10000 $10000 (Basic fee to be able to play the game) 10000 - 50000 $15000 50000 - 100000 $20000 100000 - 500000 $50000 500000 - 1000000 $80000 1000000 - 2000000 $100000 2000000 - 3000000 $1200000 3000000 - 4000000 $1400000 ... In the case the money collected in such a way should not sum up to the amount demanded by ICANN I would suggest that ICANN is looking for alternative sources of funding .-) Best, tom Am 08.06.2004 schrieb Robert F. Connelly:
Dear Registrars:
In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*.
It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
* Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see whose "names are on the blotter";-}
Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Dear all, while I can understand Thomas idea, I prefer the way Bob looks at it asking for details of the work spend for registrars. If I use a lawyer he normally gives me a detailed list of activities together with his invoice. If we have to pay the bill I would strongly request something equivalent. Pardon, but from my personal experience I am at all NOT convinced that ICANN is working efficient. On the contrary we know from the ccTLDs that ICANN likes to be envolved in additional matters enlaging the competence. siegfried On 9 Jun 2004 at 10:14, Thomas Keller wrote: Date sent: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:14:34 +0200 From: Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de> To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Copies to: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org>, Kurt Pritz <pritz@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
Dear Bob,
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has. In other words in reality the registrars with more domain names to not cost ICANN more money than smaller registrars with less registrations. Since there seems to be no interrelation to the amount of domains in this regard and on the other hand certainly is no relation to domains on the policy cost site I would like to raise the question why the fees should be domain related at all. This might not be a very popular viewpoint but shouldn't it ,as a matter of fairness and equal opportunity, be the same fee for all of us if we all receive the same service? In theory I do not really see why someone with a successful (or different) business model should be punished by having to pay more for the same service than anyone else. The way almost every tax system is build to take up this analogy again is that the ones with more contribute more to the public good than the others but it is always predictable and there is always a cap. The system I would like to see only relies on caped fixed fees which might even be calculated by the amount of registrations held but has no additional variable or transaction fees. Such a system could look like a ordinary tax table:
These figures are just examples. I randomly picked numbers .-)
0 - 10000 $10000 (Basic fee to be able to play the game) 10000 - 50000 $15000 50000 - 100000 $20000 100000 - 500000 $50000 500000 - 1000000 $80000 1000000 - 2000000 $100000 2000000 - 3000000 $1200000 3000000 - 4000000 $1400000 ...
In the case the money collected in such a way should not sum up to the amount demanded by ICANN I would suggest that ICANN is looking for alternative sources of funding .-)
Best,
tom
Am 08.06.2004 schrieb Robert F. Connelly:
Dear Registrars:
In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*.
It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
* Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see whose "names are on the blotter";-}
Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Siegfried, I agree to all your points especially on the details part. Take Schlund as an example for the moment. We have had maybe 5 to 10 occasions over the last 4 years where ICANN had to contact us and even less requests towards ICANN from us. We are very willing to pay a fair fee for this but I think that almost $200000 a year are very excessive for such a service. I would guess that the truely operational costs are not very high in total and that most of the money is spend on the policy making site. In regard to this we all get the same out of it because we all have the same contracts no matter of small or large. At the end a funding model has to be found which reflects this and not a modell were someone is punished for doing a good job. tom Am 09.06.2004 schrieb Siegfried Langenbach:
Dear all,
while I can understand Thomas idea, I prefer the way Bob looks at it asking for details of the work spend for registrars.
If I use a lawyer he normally gives me a detailed list of activities together with his invoice. If we have to pay the bill I would strongly request something equivalent.
Pardon, but from my personal experience I am at all NOT convinced that ICANN is working efficient. On the contrary we know from the ccTLDs that ICANN likes to be envolved in additional matters enlaging the competence.
siegfried
On 9 Jun 2004 at 10:14, Thomas Keller wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:14:34 +0200 From: Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de> To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Copies to: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org>, Kurt Pritz <pritz@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
Dear Bob,
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has. In other words in reality the registrars with more domain names to not cost ICANN more money than smaller registrars with less registrations. Since there seems to be no interrelation to the amount of domains in this regard and on the other hand certainly is no relation to domains on the policy cost site I would like to raise the question why the fees should be domain related at all. This might not be a very popular viewpoint but shouldn't it ,as a matter of fairness and equal opportunity, be the same fee for all of us if we all receive the same service? In theory I do not really see why someone with a successful (or different) business model should be punished by having to pay more for the same service than anyone else. The way almost every tax system is build to take up this analogy again is that the ones with more contribute more to the public good than the others but it is always predictable and there is always a cap. The system I would like to see only relies on caped fixed fees which might even be calculated by the amount of registrations held but has no additional variable or transaction fees. Such a system could look like a ordinary tax table:
These figures are just examples. I randomly picked numbers .-)
0 - 10000 $10000 (Basic fee to be able to play the game) 10000 - 50000 $15000 50000 - 100000 $20000 100000 - 500000 $50000 500000 - 1000000 $80000 1000000 - 2000000 $100000 2000000 - 3000000 $1200000 3000000 - 4000000 $1400000 ...
In the case the money collected in such a way should not sum up to the amount demanded by ICANN I would suggest that ICANN is looking for alternative sources of funding .-)
Best,
tom
Am 08.06.2004 schrieb Robert F. Connelly:
Dear Registrars:
In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*.
It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
* Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see whose "names are on the blotter";-}
Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Only ICANN accredited registrars are allowed to directly interact with ICANN accredited Registries and avail themselves of the opportunities that it affords. So I see the transactional fee as being a reasonable way to collect payment for that. Basing the majority of our fees on realized revenue is fair and provides predictability in our costs. And, while I certainly understand the concerns of the smaller registrars in regards to the amount, a per-registrar fee also makes sense for the reasons Thomas states below. In regards to the portion of the budget being funded by registrars, Paul and Kurt are the first to admit that it is out of proportion to the services we receive. They have said repeatedly that they want to change that. Their actions and the budget process in general this year demonstrate to me that they intend to follow through. The registrars' contribution has been out of whack since the beginning. That fact as well as the missed funding opportunities is not the doing of the current ICANN administration. I believe they are truly trying to fix it and I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. We have an opportunity this year to possibly get a cap on our fees for the next three years. That they are willing to even entertain that idea tells me they are serious about making a change. I encourage us all to not miss that opportunity and push this off on the registries. If we do, we will simply find ourselves in the same boat next year with no real influence to change anything. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:17 AM To: Siegfried Langenbach Cc: Registrars Constituency; Kurt Pritz Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN Siegfried, I agree to all your points especially on the details part. Take Schlund as an example for the moment. We have had maybe 5 to 10 occasions over the last 4 years where ICANN had to contact us and even less requests towards ICANN from us. We are very willing to pay a fair fee for this but I think that almost $200000 a year are very excessive for such a service. I would guess that the truely operational costs are not very high in total and that most of the money is spend on the policy making site. In regard to this we all get the same out of it because we all have the same contracts no matter of small or large. At the end a funding model has to be found which reflects this and not a modell were someone is punished for doing a good job. tom Am 09.06.2004 schrieb Siegfried Langenbach:
Dear all,
while I can understand Thomas idea, I prefer the way Bob looks at it asking for details of the work spend for registrars.
If I use a lawyer he normally gives me a detailed list of activities together with his invoice. If we have to pay the bill I would strongly request something equivalent.
Pardon, but from my personal experience I am at all NOT convinced that ICANN is working efficient. On the contrary we know from the ccTLDs that ICANN likes to be envolved in additional matters enlaging the competence.
siegfried
On 9 Jun 2004 at 10:14, Thomas Keller wrote:
Date sent: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:14:34 +0200 From: Thomas Keller <tom@schlund.de> To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Copies to: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org>, Kurt Pritz <pritz@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
Dear Bob,
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has. In other words in reality the registrars with more domain names to not cost ICANN more money than smaller registrars with less registrations. Since there seems to be no interrelation to the amount of domains in this regard and on the other hand certainly is no relation to domains on the policy cost site I would like to raise the question why the fees should be domain related at all. This might not be a very popular viewpoint but shouldn't it ,as a matter of fairness and equal opportunity, be the same fee for all of us if we all receive the same service? In theory I do not really see why someone with a successful (or different) business model should be punished by having to pay more for the same service than anyone else. The way almost every tax system is build to take up this analogy again is that the ones with more
contribute more to the public good than the others but it is always predictable and there is always a cap. The system I would like to see only relies on caped fixed fees which might even be calculated by the amount of registrations held but has no additional variable or transaction fees. Such a system could look like a ordinary tax table:
These figures are just examples. I randomly picked numbers .-)
0 - 10000 $10000 (Basic fee to be able to play the game) 10000 - 50000 $15000 50000 - 100000 $20000 100000 - 500000 $50000 500000 - 1000000 $80000 1000000 - 2000000 $100000 2000000 - 3000000 $1200000 3000000 - 4000000 $1400000 ...
In the case the money collected in such a way should not sum up to the amount demanded by ICANN I would suggest that ICANN is looking for alternative sources of funding .-)
Best,
tom
Am 08.06.2004 schrieb Robert F. Connelly:
Dear Registrars:
In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created by irate registrants; and he implied that smaller registrars cause a disproportionate number of grievances*.
It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice of who their registrar actually is. It *is* a contractual requirement upon registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer from a registrar which uses resellers. We have hard copies of authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals,
before we ever queue a transfer request. Often, the registrar of record tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
* Footnote: I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as anecdotal unless he could quantify it. It would be interesting to see
whose "names are on the blotter";-}
Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the budget;-{
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons. OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-) This is supposed to be an open society. Cordially, BobC
Bob, All this time I have asked for ICANN to show us the Registrars how they will spend or plan on spending $3.8M on us. Remember, this Variable Fee is extra to the original budget. Patricio Valdes Parava Networks, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:59 AM To: Registrars Constituency Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons. OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-) This is supposed to be an open society. Cordially, BobC
I think Bob makes an excellent point. Independent of how the ICANN budget assesses fees from registrars, ICANN should publish a regular report detailing which specific registrars were the subject of complaints, compliance enforcement or other matters. We should all know which registrars are the repeated causes of on-going ICANN expenses. Tom Barrett EnCirca, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:59 AM To: Registrars Constituency Cc: Kurt Pritz Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons. OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-) This is supposed to be an open society. Cordially, BobC
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons.
I reject also. So let me give it a try for you as to why: It defies common sense. It also defies common sense that a reseller network is not going to create more potential complaints. In theory of course. I don't have ICANN data to back this up but I do have personal experience with this. I can tell you that we get 3 to 6 complaints a day regarding a certain reseller for a registrar (that has a name similar to our name) that seems to have a problem refunding money to customers when a registrar transfer fails. It's always the same story. I can just imagine the amount of times that this happens where we don't get the complaints. I would imagine the reason ICANN doesn't get more complaints is that many end users don't know how to contact ICANN or even the existence of ICANN. After all, when I have a complaint with the phone company it's not like I take the time to complain to anyone other than the phone company. Back to statistics. Of course there are mitigating factors. For example, a large domain buyer, like buydomains.com might own 200,000 domains which go through one or a few registrar. In a situation like that there is likely to be no complaints to ICANN for that 200k block of names. On the other hand a single large reseller with 200k names at a single or multiple registrars or multiple resellers would most likely cause complaints in ratio to the amount of names registered. I've noticed that some of the large registrars have instituted reseller programs where they do everything for a reseller, put up the site take the orders, pretty much everything. They sell you the names for a low price and encourage you to mark up the names for a few dollars. They don't require anything, as far as I can tell, in terms of making sure that those resellers provide support the registrants of the low priced domains etc. Larry Erlich
OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-)
This is supposed to be an open society.
Cordially, BobC
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
We are again drifting from "discussing the budget" to trying to pin "it" on the other model. I would like to remind the "pin it on the reseller models" proposals that many of today successful "Accredited Registrars" started as resellers of larger registrars, they acted as resellers until they got the necessary skills and momentum to start on their own. That simple fact not only validates the reseller model, but also shows that in encourages "healthy and knowledgeable" competition. JP
From: Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com> Organization: DomainRegistry.com, Inc. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:40:03 -0400 To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org>, Kurt Pritz <pritz@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons.
I reject also. So let me give it a try for you as to why: It defies common sense.
It also defies common sense that a reseller network is not going to create more potential complaints. In theory of course. I don't have ICANN data to back this up but I do have personal experience with this. I can tell you that we get 3 to 6 complaints a day regarding a certain reseller for a registrar (that has a name similar to our name) that seems to have a problem refunding money to customers when a registrar transfer fails. It's always the same story. I can just imagine the amount of times that this happens where we don't get the complaints. I would imagine the reason ICANN doesn't get more complaints is that many end users don't know how to contact ICANN or even the existence of ICANN. After all, when I have a complaint with the phone company it's not like I take the time to complain to anyone other than the phone company.
Back to statistics. Of course there are mitigating factors. For example, a large domain buyer, like buydomains.com might own 200,000 domains which go through one or a few registrar. In a situation like that there is likely to be no complaints to ICANN for that 200k block of names. On the other hand a single large reseller with 200k names at a single or multiple registrars or multiple resellers would most likely cause complaints in ratio to the amount of names registered.
I've noticed that some of the large registrars have instituted reseller programs where they do everything for a reseller, put up the site take the orders, pretty much everything. They sell you the names for a low price and encourage you to mark up the names for a few dollars. They don't require anything, as far as I can tell, in terms of making sure that those resellers provide support the registrants of the low priced domains etc.
Larry Erlich
OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-)
This is supposed to be an open society.
Cordially, BobC
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob, What about the subject of this e-mail?
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:27:34 -0700 To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org> Cc: Kurt Pritz <pritz@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN
At 11:14 AM 6/9/04, JP wrote:
That simple fact not only validates the reseller model, but also shows that in encourages "healthy and knowledgeable" competition.
Dear JP: Sounds like wishful apologetics to me. Regards, BobC
Dear Registrars: I totally agree with Bob on this one. We need a breakdown of how many cases ICANN has had to deal with per registrar. Regards, Duane Connelly At 23:58 09/06/04, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
At 01:14 AM 6/9/04, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has.
Dear Thomas: I totally reject your thesis. I'm traveling and less able to write my reasons.
OTOH, I am raising a demand that ICANN quantify their allegation. If ICANN is doing work for which we must pay and it is related to registrar malfeasance, we should be provided with a list of the culprits and the number of cases thereto related;-)
This is supposed to be an open society.
Cordially, BobC
participants (10)
-
Bhavin Turakhia -
Duane Connelly -
JP -
Larry Erlich -
Patricio Valdes -
Robert F. Connelly -
Siegfried Langenbach -
tbarrett -
Thomas Keller -
Tim Ruiz