ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

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

[registrars] RE: ICANN fees

  • To: Monte Cahn <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Elana Broitman'" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [registrars] RE: ICANN fees
  • From: Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:02:29 -0400
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx, eric@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:25 AM -0400 Monte Cahn <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 


full increase.  The question is what increase do we approve or provide
our opinion on and the best way to structure our message.
How about *no* fee increase. Is no fee increase good for you? Hey, let's go further... How about a fee **decrease** ?!?! Owwww.... A decrease...
Is there some rule somewhere that ICANN should get an increase every time? No. Do I want to give them more of my money to beat up on me? No. Has ICANN shown that they listen to the concerns of registrars? No. Do we want to give ICANN our money to use to pay their lawyers when we sue them because they ignore their own procedures? No. Do we want more unfunded mandates from ICANN? No. Need I go on??? No.
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>