[registrars] RE: ICANN fees

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim - I believe that we do have leverage, but it's limited.  I think it's far easier and preferable from ICANN's perspective to collect from us.  Easier because that's the way they always did it.  That gives us some leverage, but we need to recognize the limitations.

That's all - thanks

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Elana Broitman; Monte Cahn; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; eric@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: ICANN fees


Elana, are you saying that we have to go along with with what ICANN wants 
because if we don't they will just collect the fees from us via the 
registries?  if this is our position, then how do we benefit from paying 
ICANN directly?  We either have leverage or we don't.


--On Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:04 PM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Each registrar must act according to their individual interest.  But, I'd
> like to point out that ICANN is prepared to simply go to the registries
> for collections.  Given the registries' interest in preventing ICANN
> "encroachment" into "registry services," I believe that we as registrars
> will harm ourselves and our ability to be heard on future "site finders"
> if we cede our funding position to the registries.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elana Broitman
> Register.com
> 575 Eighth Avenue
> New York, NY 10018
> Phone (212) 798-9215
> Fax   (212) 629-9309
> ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx; eric@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: ICANN fees
> Importance: High
>
>
> Hello Elana,
>
>> From what I understand, there were many against this fee increase and
> those concerns were discussed openly at the last meeting.  I think the
> most compelling point made was that none of us would accept such a
> dramatic expenditure increase in our own businesses, why would we
> approve one through ICANN?  This increase dramatically effects the
> little margins we have left in domain registrations.
>
> The fact that ICANN FINALLY sent a cease and desist letter to VeriSign
> for Sitefinder was not only 2 weeks overdue, it is also their
> responsibility to regulate such actions which jeopardize the internet
> infrastructure.  This delay allowed VeriSign profit in the tune of $4
> Million per day while Sitefinder was live.  Many feel that we may all be
> entitled to a portion of these proceeds.  The fee increase is not to be
> treated like a reward for good performance - it is their job to perform.
> I also find that their handling of WLS is good reason to hold them even
> more accountable in the future and restrict increases until they act
> responsibly on behalf of all of our organizations.
>
> I feel we can demonstrate support by sending a clear message of concern
> for past performance and not approve the full fee increase being
> requested.  It is important that we set a precedent not to approve the
> full increase.  The question is what increase do we approve or provide
> our opinion on and the best way to structure our message.
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte Cahn
> Founder/CEO
>
> Monte@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Monte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> O - 954-984-8445
> F - 954-969-9155
>
> Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
> DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
> CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:41 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: ICANN fees
>
>
> Dear all - as you may recall from our meeting in Marina del Rey and our
> conference call several weeks ago, ICANN accredited registrars must vote
> to accept payment of the variable accreditation fee for the fiscal year
> of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 (Section 3.9.2 of the Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement).   Registrars accounting, in the aggregate, for
> payment of two-thirds of all registrar-level fees, must approve the fees
> in order for ICANN to collect them from registrars.  If we do not do so,
> ICANN may, under its contracts with the registries, collect them
> directly from the registries.
>
> As per our discussions, many in the constituency believed that we should
> send a letter to ICANN setting out our concerns and goals when approving
> such fees.  Attached is a draft letter proposed by the Executive
> Committee.  As you can see, while it contains a set of concerns and
> deliverables, it ultimately provides for approval of the variable fee.
> I, for one, believe that ICANN has recently proven its willingness and
> ability to effectively monitor agreements and respond to concerns (e.g.,
> Site Finder).  This is the time to both demonstrate our support for
> ICANN and ensure that we remain a vital part of the organization by
> being the ones primarilly responsible for fees.
>
> Please signal to ICANN your approval of the fee collection by sending in
> this letter or otherwise contacting Dan Halloran and Diane Schroeder at
> halloran@xxxxxxxxx and schroeder@xxxxxxxxx.
>
> Regards,
>
> Elana Broitman
>
>