[registrars] RE: ICANN Fees Continued

["Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not mean for this to come off the wrong way here but I think it is
naive to assume that we are automatically going to be assessed a rise in
registry fees.  Nothing in this industry has gone as expected and I do
not feel this situation will either.  

Whether .org is a non profit or not, they either end up with surplus or
profit - it just depends on how you look at it.  It is also very clear
that VeriSign's registry is probably the most profitable division within
VeriSign so they surely have the money to supplement this increase.  

I think we not only have a delay in when we would have to pay this, we
might have a chance to divert or reduce the assessment all together
based on who we leverage our position and how we stand together.

Lastly, although most of us voted on the Sitefinder issue and one might
assume that our voice was heard in this regard, WLS is another story
that boggles my mind.  Where is our voice being heard in this regard?

 - I am still trying to make a point and I know everyone understands
where I am going with this.

I will try to stop filling everyone's email box up now.

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: Robert Andrews [mailto:randrews@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:25 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: ICANN Fees Continued


Basic business principles dictate a rise in rates.  The Registries are
service organizations.  Suppose ICANN raises the fees that Registries
have to pay.  Do you think they are just going to reach into their
pockets and pay(according to my last ICANN invoice) $3,768,518 a year to
cover the current registrar fees and not look to charge someone for it?
ICANN wants to double this number to $7.5 million+.  The Public Interest
Registry (.org) is a non-profit. They will have to raise their fees or
they will require outside funding.  No way to run a self sustaining
.org!

The registration fee is $6 and $5.75 because the system is set up to
allow registrars to sell the names for a profit and subsequently
generate enough money to also provide funding ICANN. $6 and $5.75 are
cost basis pricing for the registries.  The registries will certainly
demand an increase in registration price.

>>Who says it is a guarantee that the fees will be passed on to us by 
>>the
registries?
Common sense says that this will occur.

>>I feel that we have far greater leverage with the registries than we 
>>do
with ICANN.
Yeah, Verisign really listened to you about the site finder service.
ICANN asked the registrars for their opinion and then forced the
registrars opinion upon Verisign. I see that you voted on the TLD
Wildcards ballot and your voice was heard by ICANN.

>>There also seems to be more profit being collected by the registries 
>>than
the registrars on average.
Public Interest Registry is a non-profit.  Verisign has a registry
division
separate from the registrar division.   If they have any profit in the
registry division, they would be severely hit by the .com and .net fees
of $3.47 million or $6.94 million after the increase.

-----Original Message-----
From: Monte Cahn [mailto:monte@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:36 PM
To: 'Robert Andrews'; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: ICANN Fees Continued
Importance: High


  I feel that we have far greater leverage with the
registries than we do with ICANN - especially those that want to
increase their brand in a primarily .com world.  I may be wrong but
their seems to be far greater leverage between the registries and ICANN
than we have with ICANN.  We are not ICANN's voice or customer but we
are the registries customer.  There also seems to be more profit being
collected by the registries than the registrars on average.

Please clarify that in fact the registries will be raising fees to us or
is everyone just assuming this?

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: Robert Andrews [mailto:randrews@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:03 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: ICANN Fees Continued


There are many aspects to this ICANN fee proposal.  First, ICANN is
woefully understaffed and is in need of personnel.  The items below are
from the current year ICANN budget proposal. They say in their budget
that they will use the money to work on the shortcomings that we are all
aware of.  Second, the legal operating agreements say that ICANN and the
registries can raise fees by mutual agreement between ICANN's Board and
the Registry.

If we don't pay the fees as registrars, you can surmise that the fees
charged for registrations by the registries will rise as ICANN bills
them for the revenue they want/need. If we do pay as registrars, the
registration fees will not be under pressure to increase in the short
term.  In either scenario, registrars will be forced to pass this
increased expense onto their customers.  What the registrars will lose
if they do not pay the fees is their powerful voice as a constituency of
ICANN.

As for the howling about the site finder service, there are no clauses
in the contracts that prohibit these types of actions.  We, as the
registrars, were able to block this practice and force reforms using our
consituency with ICANN. I understand that the registrars are in a
difficult business climate, but it seems to me that ICANN needs to be
ramped up to deal with an ever growing slate of issues such as the Site
Finder debacle.  Reforms in this case means the use of lawyers to write
new stuff after the usual string of endless meetings.

And I would love to hear any ideas and proposals to make Site Finder a
revenue producer for everyone!

------
>From the ICANN Budget Proposal
This Preliminary FY04 Budget builds on the Adopted FY03 Budget primarily
by providing for the expansion of ICANN staff and other resources
required to meet the obligations required by the approved ICANN reforms
as embodied in the bylaws and in board resolutions.

An increase in both staffing and expenditures to accommodate the
additional programmatic requirements imposed by the new reforms and the
new bylaws, that is, the transition from ICANN 1.0 to ICANN 2.0.

The addition of a Deputy General Counsel to ease the considerable burden
that falls on the General Counsel. This in-house position will also
mitigate to some extent expenditures for outside counsel.
------


Robert B. Andrews
America Online, Inc.
Systems Programmer, Network Management
RobAndrews2@xxxxxxx, randrews@xxxxxxx
703/265-5958 x55958

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of America Online, Inc. Finally, the recipient should check this
email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. America Online,
Inc. accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this email.