RE: [registrars] ICANN Fees/Budget going forward

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob, actually I don't know that for a certainty. But Netsol has to
approve, and RCOM, eNom, and Schlund have already approved. I was also
assuming two other large registrars will or have approved based on
comments made on the list. 

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 8:52 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Fees/Budget going forward

Tim,

How did you get to the fact that it was approved by enough Registrars ?
Did
we get to 66% somehow ?

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:36 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] ICANN Fees/Budget going forward


It appears that the current ICANN budget has the required approval from
Registrars. But I don't think we should now back burner the topic until
this time next year.

There have been some ideas expressed that I believe are worth pursuing
further. For example, the separate line item concept suggested by Tom.

But there is also the wildcard issue that we should consider, regardless
of whether VeriSign is allowed to continue to use them right now or not.
If ever allowed, I believe it should affect the allocation of that
registry's fees. They have basically registered every possible name for
their own benefit. Why would this not affect the allocation of fees?

I would like to ask the Executive Committee to take the lead in drawing
out an RC position on these issues that can be proposed to ICANN.

Tim