RE: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee for 2003-2004

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On the same note, I am again going out to everyone with a request for some data (even merely anecdotal) on how you comply with whois accuracy requirements in the RAA and cost of doing so.  This is very important to provide before tomorrow's Congressional hearing in order help protect us from "unfunded mandates" based on incomplete information supplied by interest groups pushing for more Whois verification and availability.

Thanks

Elana Broitman



-----Original Message-----
From: wessorh@xxxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:37 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable
Accreditation Fee for 2003-2004



Tim,

I absolutely support your position, as we (registrars) fund much of
icann's budget (like 65%) at some point we should ask if we are getting
our monies worth.

I made these and several points clear to to the budget committee in
monterial.

While everyone advocates that "icann allows us to pay" instead of
extracting the funds from registries, I propose we have this relationship
formalized in the contracts will be updating to take into account
provisions recently passed by the board.

I am constantly amazed at how ineffective we are as a group and this is
certainly an opportunity for us to speak with a single voice, or loose our
capability to influence and allow our margins to be eroded by icann.

I look forward to your draft letter (hint hint)

best,

-rick


On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I agree Bruce. And how about ICANN's approval of the WLS despite the
> overwhelming opposition of the stake holders funding the majority of
> ICANN's budget, and just about everybody else. Regardless of what you
> think of the WLS specifically, this should have us all concerned.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:25 PM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation
> Fee for 2003-2004
>
> Hello Elana,
>
> I suggest if we are going to approve this, that we consider a joint
> letter to ICANN highlighting concerns of registrars.
>
> For example the ICANN Board approved new policies in relation to WHOIS
> and Transfers, and I expect will approve a deletes policy in Catharge.
> Despite progress in developing new policies to address problems for
> registrants, we have seen very little progress on either implementation
> of these new policy outsocmes, or compliance with the existing policies.
>
> The ICANN cover note below makes mention of work on introducing new
> gtlds, but no mention of implementing new policies already approved.
>
> The lack of progress on transfers - which was approved by the ICANN
> Board in April - is very dissappointing.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2003 3:52 AM
> > To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> > Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx; Paul Westley; Registrars Executive Committee
> > Subject: FW: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee
> > for 2003-2004
> >
> >
> > Dear Registrars - this is a message regarding approval of the
> > ICANN budget.
> >
> > The RAA provides that in order for variable accreditation
> > fees to be collected directly from registrars - as opposed to
> > registries - these fees must be expressly approved by enough
> > registrars to account for two-thirds of all the registrar
> > fees to be paid.  As you may recall, we had briefed
> > registrars regarding the budget at the Montreal meeting,
> > including the doubling of the fees this year in order to fund
> > the new reorganized ICANN.  We would like to see ICANN take
> > the larger budget and quickly hire the staff and make other
> > changes that it needs to, in order to become more efficient
> > and responsive and to finally implement the policies that
> > have been in the process of adoption, in some cases, for
> > several years.
> >
> > I would encourage approval of this budget in order to give
> > ICANN the resources to become the effective institution that
> > Paul Twomey has promised, as well as to maintain registrars
> > as a direct link to the ICANN budget.  There will be further
> > opportunities for comments and questions to ICANN staff at
> > the LA meeting.  But, I would encourage us to focus on
> > keeping ICANN responsible for the changes that this budget
> > will fund, rather than delay with approving the budget at this time.
> >
> > Attached is a message from ICANN regarding the budget, the
> > process, and the approval form that would need to be sent to
> > ICANN by each approving registrar.  Please send your form
> > prior to our meeting on the 12th.
> >
> > Please let Paul Westley and/or the ExCom know if/when you
> > send the approval form.
> >
> > Thank you very much for your attention to this.  Please feel
> > free to contact me if you have any questions.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Elana Broitman
> > Register.com
> > 575 Eighth Avenue
> > New York, NY 10018
> > Phone (212) 798-9215
> > Fax   (212) 629-9309
> > ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Dear Registrar,
> >
> > Each year, all ICANN-Accredited Registrars are given an
> > opportunity to approve the level of registrar contributions
> > to ICANN budget.  Please take a moment to review ICANN's
> > Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004
> > <http://www.icann.org/financials/budget-fy03-04-14aug03.htm>.
> > This budget was developed in consultation with the Budget
> > Advisory Group - including three delegates from the
> > Registrars Constituency.  As indicated in the budget, ICANN's
> > priorities for this year include the following:
> >
> > 	- Reorganization of ICANN into a more business-like
> > structure, including retooling of current positions and
> > addition of several key staff positions.
> >
> > 	- Complete remaining work on the evaluation of the
> > November 2000 round of new gTLDs; complete remaining work on
> > approving and launching a limited round of new sponsored
> > gTLDs; and develop a framework for considering further
> > expansion in the top-level gTLD namespace.
> >
> > 	- Improve ICANN's capability for monitoring agreements
> > and ensuring compliance.
> >
> > 	- Strengthen ICANN as an operating organization,
> > including continued normalization of financial support,
> > staffing, and administrative operations.
> >
> > As in the past, the budget provides that ICANN-Accredited
> > Registrars will contribute to ICANN's budget through both
> > yearly accreditation fees and, if they elect, quarterly
> > variable accreditation fees.  The yearly fees will remain at
> > US$4,000 for the first TLD for which you are accredited, plus
> > US$500 for each additional TLD.  The formula for determining
> > the variable accreditation fees also remains essentially the
> > same as it is. The effective per-name fee under the formula
> > this year will, based on the recommendation of ICANN's Budget
> > Advisory Group, increase from approximately 12 to
> > approximately 18 cents. (For your reference, you can find a
> > chart showing all registrar contributions for the 2002-2003
> > fiscal year at
> > <http://www.icann.org/financials/gtld-contribution-chart-02-03.htm>.)
> >
> > The Registrar Accreditation Agreement provides that in order
> > to be collected directly from registrars, these fees must be
> > expressly approved by enough registrars to account for
> > two-thirds of all the registrar fees to be paid.
> >
> > If you would like to voice your approval for the fees, please
> > sign and send the attached letter to:
> >
> > ICANN
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > USA
> > Phone: 1/310-823-9358
> > Fax: 1/310-823-8649
> >
> > Thank you for your attention.
> >
> >
>
>