Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nitin, you are quite correct. The sad thing is that this is 100% a 
function of people abusing (IMHO) accreditations to play in the 
secondary market.
This is the elephant in the room that we all need to be explicit about. 
The market is such today that bare accreditations go for $10-20k/month. 
That is, as Mark Knopfler put it, money for nothing and the checks for free.
If you are making less than that from being a registrar in the current 
market you are better served "renting" out your threads and going back 
to being a reseller. Sad but true.
From where I sit, paying a $19k fee for $120-240k/yr. is a pretty sweet 
deal! Certainly a lot easier than folks like us who actually have to 
work for their money.
Again, sad but true.

Regards

Nitin Agarwal wrote:

> There's nothing to be happy about. $19,000 in addition to the current fees
> is a huge difference in what is currently being paid especially for the
> smaller registrars. It doesn't really help create competition. I see it only
> raising the barrier to entry. I rather see an increased per transaction fee
> to allow for greater competition by keeping fixed fees small. This way, the
> larger registrars can pay there appropriate larger portion of the fees
> rather than taxing everyone equally.
>
> -Nitin
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Donny Simonton" <donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Patricio Valdes'" <valdes@xxxxxxxxxx>; "'Rick Wesson'"
> <wessorh@xxxxxx>; "'Jean-Michel Becar'" <jmbecar@xxxxxx>
> Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment
>
>
> Be very happy, the numbers I first saw were $0.49 per transaction!
>
> Donny
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Patricio Valdes
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:53 PM
> > To: Rick Wesson; Jean-Michel Becar
> > Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment
> >
> >
> > Please tell me I read wrong, they want to charge a per transaction fee of
> > $.25. On top of that, $4,000 a year for the accreditation plus $19,000 a
> > year for the Variable Registrar Support?
> >
> > Please tell me Im wrong! The $19,000 is assuming ALL 197 Reigstrars will
> > pay. What happens when some of these Registrars dissappear? Will it also
> > increase?
> >
> > Please tell me Im wrong!
> >
> >
> > Patricio Valdes
> > Parava Networks
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@xxxxxx>
> > To: "Jean-Michel Becar" <jmbecar@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment
> >
> >
> >
> > > would those that have served on the budget committee provide specific
> > > comments on just what they did?
> > >
> > > It appears that the registrars burden will have increased 150% and I'm
> > > doubting that our reps did the registrars any good.
> > >
> > > would the reps on the budget committee please provide specific comments
> > > on just how they "helped" us this time?
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > > Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear fellows registrars,
> > > >
> > > > The ICANN proposed budget for 2004 just get out for public comment.
> > > > Enjoy the reading.
> > > > Jean-Michel

--
Elliot Noss
Tucows Inc.
416-538-5494
enoss.blogware.com