ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment
  • From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:41:40 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <200405181719.i4IHJ7806949@pechora.icann.org>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQ84Spoc/68MBKUSBiDcdFcsraURgADOSDwAAOFWIAAAKw2cA==

When we reach 38 Registrars left, each Registrar will pay $100K per year,
ironically the same fee as running a Registry.

I would agree, registries should pay based on how many domains they have,
rather then a flat Registry fee. If I can pay $100K for a Registry, where do
I sign up?

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.
http://www.nameintelligence.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 10:20 AM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment


> This is a plan to get rid of smaller registrars. That is my 
> two cents on this situation. I would vote for $0.49 per 
> domain flat, rather then making the smallest registrar in 

I would much rather myself vote for a $0.49 flat fee per domain year than
vote for a model where smaller Registrars are bearing a higher cost than the
larger ones. Offcourse id even much rather see a portion of that $0.49 come
out of Registries who are already making fixed margins.

bhavin




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>