RE: [registrars] ICANN fees

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Thus what we are really saying is that 
>we want the charging model to be changed

Correct, at least that's I assumed Tom and Rob to be suggesting. Another
key factor would be that all registrars are "required" to present it as
a separate line item. That's the problem with doing it on our own now.
No one will because no one does.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:43 PM
To: Tom D'Alleva; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN fees

Hello Tom,

> 
> I would like to raise the issue again about allowing 
> registrars to break out the ICANN fee when registering 
> domains.  I believe the benefits to all parties outweigh any 
> of the concerns.
> 

I support that.  I guess the issue is that there is nothing stopping us
including something like that today - but our difficulty is equating a
fee that relates to the number of names under management, with charging
a customer for a new name or renewal etc.

Thus what we are really saying is that we want the charging model to be
changed, so that we can in turn expose that charging model to our
customers.  If there was more exposure of this, we would probably get
more voices involved in the budget process.  Right now there are many
involved in setting and approving the budget, but they have little
involvement in contributing to that budget.   

Have you ever seen an ICANN Board election where a candidate even
mentions that they will try to cut or control costs?  Contrast this with
most elections for Government office.

Regards,
Bruce