RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment

["Donny Simonton" <donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bhavin,
I agree with you that larger registrars, on a per volume basis have it much
easier than smaller ones.  But the registries have contracts with ICANN that
say they will only pay x per year.  Not x per domain.

For example Verisign pays $132,000 per year for currently 28 million .com
domains.  Or $0.0047142857142857142857142857142857 per domain name.

But since the registries have contracts with ICANN they won't them pay
anymore.

Personally I blame the increase on all of the companies that decided to sue
ICANN over the past year!  Could you image if say for example Verisign sued
ICANN over SiteFinder and they would have won?  And then they said they
would have wanted back pay from when ICANN told them to shut it down?  There
would be 2 maybe 3 domain registrars left if ICANN would lose that lawsuit.


But we still have no protection from ICANN losing a lawsuit to anybody.  So
one day when it does happen, and it will, get ready for some real increases.

Will the fun ever end?

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:20 PM
> To: 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment
> 
> 
> > This is a plan to get rid of smaller registrars. That is my
> > two cents on this situation. I would vote for $0.49 per
> > domain flat, rather then making the smallest registrar in
> 
> I would much rather myself vote for a $0.49 flat fee per domain year than
> vote for a model where smaller Registrars are bearing a higher cost than
> the
> larger ones. Offcourse id even much rather see a portion of that $0.49
> come
> out of Registries who are already making fixed margins.
> 
> bhavin
>