RE: [registrars] Questions re: Budget Committee

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

No one will argue with "fiscal restraint and responsibility" or 
stuff like "ICANN needs to be more efficient with the funds" or
"ICANN needs to show results for the funds"
Its all "I love babies"

I believe that ICANN believes the current model (registrars pay for almost
the entire budget) does not scale. 
We should confirm this.  If confirmed, at least that's a good first step.

If we say "no" the registries must pay 
And they get to pass that cost on to us. 
We cannot pass that on to registrants because of competition.
Whats happened over the years is that ICANN has become effectively
subsidized/funded by registrar's other business customers, such as web
hosting or email customers, not by registrants.

So any situation where registrars must pay (directly or indirectly) and
where we cannot pass that on to others, does not scale. 
I believe we need to make clear to ICANN now that we will not support any
increase in fees to registrars. This does not mean we will not support a
budget increase, just that if there is a budget increase the increase must
come from other sources.  We then need to find these other sources, which
if ICANN was motivated to do, I believe can be done.
There are a number of example sources that I won't include here, but which I
would like to, and I think we should, discuss.
It won't be easy; therefore we need to focus now on finding the sources.
I've already gone on record that it is extremely likely that eNom will vote
"no" to *any* registrar fee increase, and let the chips fall where they may.

We need to "warn" ICANN now that while we may or may not support a budget
increase, that the increase, if any, not be born by the registrars. 
A "registrars can't pay" surprise later will be worse for ICANN and the rest
of the registrars left standing than a "registrars wont pay" statement now.
The key word is "now".  If we are not firm now, there won't be
much motivation over the next 6 months, and therefore we'll be in the same
situation yet another year.  
Firmness now will motivate ICANN, and give enough time and focus for all of
us, (ICANN, registrars, registries, governments, whoever) to find those
other funding sources.  It is self-fulfilling.
It will also put a little pressure in ICANN to restrain
any budget increase.  I say a little, because I don't know of any
force that could restrain ICANN a lot in that regard.  I wish I did.

We need to help ICANN to find other sources.
If we can confirm that ICANN agrees registrar's funding of ICANN does not
scale by even one more dime (and I don't mean per-name, I mean total), 
then at least we know that ICANN is at least somewhat motivated.

There is very little or no incentive for any member of the budget committee
or the ICANN finance committee (besides a member of the RC) to not increase
the budget, while at the same time there is constant pressure on them to
increase it.  I believe ICANN should be well-funded and can be well funded
just not directly or indirectly by registrars over the registrar's current
contribution.
I'm pretty darn sure it will be easier to find other sources 
than to somehow get ICANN to not have a budget increase.

I propose 2 things:
1) How about besides a budget committee we form a funding source search
committee?  The goal would be to come out with real recommendations to
ICANN.
2) I call for a registrar poll (note not a "vote") now on the following
question:
"will you vote to approve the ICANN budget next year if the new budget
increases the funding burden directly or indirectly on registrars beyond the
current burden"  
a) This registrar would probably vote to NOT APPROVE the budget if it
increases fees to registrars
b) This registrar would probably vote to APPROVE the budget if it increases
fees to registrars
c) This registrar DOES NOT KNOW at this time how it would vote later.  It
may depend on, for example, what the increase, is.

At least this way everyone has their expectations set.

Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cute, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:31 PM
To: 'ross@xxxxxxxxxx'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Questions re: Budget Committee

Ross,

I think fiscal restraint and responsibility are the utmost priorities.
First, registrars bear the lion share of fee burden and that should change
-- we must challenge that formula and there are various ways to attack that
point.  In my view, registrar refusal to approve payment of the fees
provides little relief.  Second, ICANN is in full expansion mode and we
should review the existing budget to determine if the current expansion
falls within its four corners.  ICANN may or may not succeed at finding
alternative sources of funding and we need to anticipate both potential
scenarios.  If ICANN can find alternative funding, it should provide an
opportunity for relief of the registrar burden.  If not, it will surely look
to the current contributors to pony up more funds.  Either scenario begs for
a fiscally responsible approach by ICANN.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:49 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Questions re: Budget Committee


Every year we elect budget reps and every year we see our budget 
contributions increase.

I'd like to hear from the respective candidates what they intend to do 
to make sure that 2004 is different from years past. I'm especially 
interested in hearing from those of you that have served in this 
capacity before.


-- 
Regards,


	-rwr
	on behalf of Tucows





"In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one 
indispensable condition for social progress."
	- Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)