[registrars] RE: ICANN fees

["Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not mean to beat a dead horse here or to put my two sense in at the
last minute, I just feel that this picture is very wrong.  We are being
asked to pay an organization that is supplemented already by the
government and special interest organizations.  Their priorities are not
to make registrars happy as we are not their customer.  Let's map out a
value chain here and see what everyone comes up with here.  If I am off
base, please someone correct me.  We should be working to reduce our
liability all together and reducing our risk.  Maybe others should be
funding this increase rather than registrars who are already assessed a
large fee as it is - not to mention our costs to operate our respective
businesses.



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: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:54 PM
To: jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: monte@xxxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx; ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: ICANN fees



to be clear you are not approving the budget, you have no say in the
budget approval process.

you are being asked to commit that you will pay your portion of the
fees, if you do not commit, ICANN will get them from the registries.

specificly you are being asked if you will pay or ICANN should make the
registries pay.

-rick

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:37:10 -0400
"Jason Hendeles" <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Monte & Elana-
> 
> I for one see no reason at this time to approve any increase in fees.
> 
> I don't see how any of these increases benefit our constituency in any

> way. Damaging Verisign's wild card sitefinder service or Verisign's 
> desire to explore new revenue opportunities does not in any way 
> benefit the registrar constituency or my bottom line as a registrar, 
> so who cares if sitefinder has been dismantled?
> 
> It's time we send ICANN a clear message that we need new revenue 
> opportunities in order to justify any increase in fees.  The last time

> ICANN did anything positive for our constituency was when they 
> authorized the creation of new domains for the registrars to market.  
> That was almost 3 years ago.  Since that time they have aggressively 
> undermined our ability to succeed.  Between WLS and the increased 
> fees, ICANN has continued to undermine our constituency.
> 
> I think the registrars should take this opportunity to apply pressure 
> to ICANN to open up the process for releasing new domain names and, or

> allow the registrar constituency to negotiate a way to revenue share 
> with Verisign's wildcard service.
> 
> I think that we should regect any increase until something tangible is

> given back to our constituency.
> 
> Jason Hendeles
> A Technology Company, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 2:12 PM
> To: 'Elana Broitman'; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: ICANN fees
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> I would encourage others to speak up NOW about this issue as it is one

> of the most important issues on the table!
> 
> 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: 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
> 
> 
>