RE: [registrars] Questions re: Budget Committee

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

> 
> First and foremost we need registrars to be as involved and 
> attentive to this process as possible, and as early as 
> possible. And I agree with Elana, we need to work closely 
> with the other constituencies, in particularly the Registries.
> 
> I feel that Paul Twomey has expressed a desire for registrars 
> to be more involved and that he is open to innovative ideas 
> for alternative funding sources. We should embrace that 
> desire and contribute meaningfully to help ICANN look outside 
> the box for new sources of funding, and perhaps reevaluate 
> the way registrars are currently paying their fees.
> 

I agree with your comments.

I think we need to be pro-active in suggesting a funding model that is
scalable and also ties ICANN to the success of the industry.  Right now
the cost of "ICANN" is growing at a faster rate than our collective
domain name revenue.  This is not sustainable.

I note the current fees are leveraged on the current domain names under
management (so if you have a 10 year registration you need to somehow
guess what the overall ICANN costs of this registration will be over 10
years).  It is also difficult to clearly state to the customer what the
ICANN component is.

I would prefer a fixed amount for each new registration - set for a
period of 1 year.
E.g a fee set at x cents per domain name registration, renewal or
transfer.  It would also be good to spread the cost across other
services (e.g WLS, redemption grace period) and potentially higher
rates.  This is easy to explain to both wholesale and retail customers.

Another issue is how to handle the compliance costs.  It may be useful
longer term to have fines in place for registrars or registries that do
not comply with the contracts (e.g maliciously denying transfers).
These fines would partly cover the costs of contractual compliance.  It
may also be appropriate for fines levied against registrants that fail
to keep their WHOIS information current (e.g a fine to remove the name
from HOLD status).  We should try to avoid increasing the costs for all
initial domain name registrants that register with reputable companies
and compy with the rules, and ensure those that do not comply with the
policy rules pay a higher portion of ICANN's costs of ensuring that all
comply.

With respect to ICANN's costs, it would be appropriate to consider
methods of cost recovery.  E.g the cost of holding ICANN meetings is
significant.  Most other organisations (e.g IETF) charge a fee to attend
such meetings.  A fee to attend would generally be a small cost for most
people where the travel and accommodation costs are the biggest expense.

I reviewing the activities of ICANN senior staff in recent months there
is a high cost still in "defending" ICANN's turf from other other
organisations (e.g UN, ITU etc).  I would like to see a budget that
separate identifies the cost of ICANN's operations relating to names and
numbers, and ICANN's political costs.  It seems to me that it is the
political costs that are growing rapidly, and the service levels to
those contributing to the fees (registries, registrars and registrants)
are not improving with the increased budget.  

I would like some business metrics around service levels that ICANN
needs to achieve (perhaps part of our funding could be contingent on
meeting certain service levels). For most of us, our revenue is directly
related to our service levels to our customers - this does not seem to
be the case for ICANN.

Regards,
Bruce