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

[Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> 1) Is the new ICANN Budget level too high, too low, about
>> right?  No doubt, it is a very large increase - almost
>> double.  However, I believe that a strong ICANN that has
>> the resources to do the work we want it to do is important
>> to us.

I think this is a key thought.  This budget in and of itself cannot
guarantee a strong ICANN.  From my position, it simply looks like an
ever-growing bureacracy.  Until ICANN is willing to publicly release a
strategic plan that documents the WHAT, WHEN and WHY for the things it has
to do to be effective, doubling its budget is premature.  By the time it
figures out the WHAT, WHEN and WHY, the "revenues" planned in the current
budget will have been spent on administrative bloat (and legal fees) and the
fees will have to go up again.

  Budgetted ICANN Expenses by year:
  ---------------------------------
  2001-2002:  $5m
  2002-2003:  $6m
  2003-2004:  $8.3m
  2004-2005:  $15.8m

This increase is too much too soon.

Regards,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:44 PM
To: Jay Westerdal; Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public
comment


I have read with interest the various postings on this issue.  I look
forward to the conference call on this, which will continue to clarify the
issues.

At this point, I see a couple of key topics:

1) Is the new ICANN Budget level too high, too low, about right?  No doubt,
it is a very large increase - almost double.  However, I believe that a
strong ICANN that has the resources to do the work we want it to do is
important to us.  Registrars have been pushing for policies from Whois
privacy to transfers and part of the problem is lack of institutional
resources to drive these home.

2) Another concern has been lack of contract implementation - why should
registrars that follow ICANN policies and contractual requirements "pay"
with bad press and consumer concerns caused by a few unscrupulous players.
Again, a strong ICANN with adequate compliance resources is important.

3) Are all stake holders paying their fair share?  No doubt, Registrars
carry the majority of the burden.  However, this budget shows doubling of
ccTLDs and RIRs.  The gTLD registries should also contribute proportionately
more, and ICANN should charge a fee for new registry services.

4) The registrar fee.  If ICANN were to get rid of the annual fee, it would
have to raise the proposed $.25/transaction to $.36/transaction in order to
make up for the difference.  This would double the current fee. Several
suggestions have been made to try to even out the effect on the smallest
registrars:  capping fees for the future so they are predictable,
instituting graduated transactional fees, creating "scholarships" per
ICANN's footnote.  But, we need to be honest that while some small
registrars truly operate solely as registrars, others make very large
margins by selling connections or other services for which domain names are
simply loss leaders, and they will not be impacted by a nominal annual fee.

Registrars have for years carried the weight of the ICANN budget.  It has
been based on the domain name alone, which does not correlate to whether
ICANN's work benefits other constituencies or is driven by non-compliance.
For these reasons, I believe that ICANN's approach to look for more funding
from other groups and to correlate fees with accreditation, not just the
size of the business is the right direction.  I would like to see ICANN be
even more creative in their search for other funding sources that better
match the benefits it brings to other stakeholders.

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 1:03 PM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public
comment


Dear fellow Registrars,
Yes, I see the elephant in the room. However there is no way to get rid of
it until WLS eats the elephant whole. If the $19,000 a year extra is there
to annoy the elephant, yes the fee will do that. But once WLS rolls out it
will reveal a landscape of only big registrars. The smaller registrars
holding elephants will leave, and the true victim of a high barrier of entry
will only be smaller registrars wanting to compete on traditional registrar
services. Pulling up the rope ladder and closing the tree house door may be
exactly what large registrars want.

Some experts in 2000 claimed there would be a huge consolidation in the
market. How could registrars survive on several dollar margins. Well over
the last 4 years we have seen the market grow several fold. And now the
question is how can registrars survive on dollar margins? Well, the only
solution is to force the consolidation and reward the larger registrars.

At $19,000 x 200 registrars it comes out to $3,800,000 a year. Two years
after WLS, I predict the number of registrars will be cut in half. So the
fee will double, because there are half the registrars, That would be
$38,000 a year. Then one year later, there will be 50 registrars, so fee
according to the purposed budget would be $76,000 per year.

Today to be in the top 100 Registrars in the world, your company must have
over 13,229 domains registered. When the 100 Registrar day comes, you will
need to make $38,000 on 13,229 domains, you need to make about $2.85 per
domain year. Or $6.00 + $0.25 + $2.85 = $9.10 per domain to break even on
fees. Then comes cost of employees, rent, computers, etc... A new registrar
would be lucky to be able to sell a name at $12.00 a domain and still make
money. Smaller registration companies will be forced into reseller programs.
Perhaps this is a good thing if you have a reseller program.

When the 50 registrar today arrives (current number #50 has 71,776 domains)
the math would be like this: $76,000 on 71,776 would be about $1.10 a
domain. That would be $6.00 + $0.25 + $1.10 = $7.35 per domain year.

So, in three years, the biggest registrar will have a huge competitive
advantage. Hence rolling up the ladder. It seems to me that $0.49 a domain
to ICANN would be more fair. The smaller registrars will be paying an extra
$1.10 per domain. And the largest registrars (assuming about 7MM domains)
will be paying only an extra $0.01.

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 2007 paying $1.35 for each of their 70,000
domains.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.
http://www.nameintelligence.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:54 AM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment

Rick and All,

When I asked for the opportunity to represent the RC on the Budget Advisory
Group (BAG) I stated that I felt there were three primary areas of concern:

1. Reexamining the registrars' funding model.
2. ICANN's future, which I believe affects our businesses' future.
3. Alternative forms of funding.

I believe the proposed budget addresses these concerns, keeping in mind that
it is part of a three plan.

1. Reexamining the registrars' funding model.
---------------------------------------------
The current funding model, based on names under management, is neither
predictable nor sustainable.

When we sell a multiple year registration we really have no idea what the
true cost is because we cannot predict what our fees to ICANN will be next
year, or ten years from now. The transactional model will help solve that.
First, we will know precisely the cost of registrations. If we sell a ten
year registration today we will pay the current transactional fee and be
done with it. Second, it allows us to more accurately set our pricing and
pass the true cost on to registrants.

I understand the concerns of some of the smaller registrars regarding the
per registrar portion of the variable fee. This is the feedback the reps on
the BAG need now. If registrars would prefer to see a higher transactional
fee in return for a lower per registrar variable fee I am confident that
your reps on the BAG, including myself, would represent that concern to the
ICANN staff and rest of the BAG.

I will point out however, that we have also heard concerns about
accreditations being acquired simply for the purpose of renting out
connections. Without commenting pro or con to such a business model, a
higher per registrar variable fee would ensure that such registrars pay an
appropriate portion in ICANN fees since the number of names under management
by such registrars is relatively very low. A significant portion of the
expense created by registrars does not depend on the number of transactions
or the number of names under management, but is roughly the same across all
accreditations. It seems appropriate that that portion be allocated equally
across all registrars, regardless of business model.

2. ICANN's future, which I believe affects our businesses' future.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we believe that ICANN is important to the future of the DNS and our
industry? If so:

--They need to be able to meet the requirements of the MoU.
--They need to be able to address threats such as law suites, the WSIS, etc.
--They need to be able to enforce their agreements.

The next three years' budget should reflect the ability to appropriately
address those issues. I believe the level of this years' budget is
appropriate based on those goals. Note, it has been reduced at least twice
based on feedback and concerns expressed by various stakeholders, primarily
registrars.

3. Alternative forms of funding.
--------------------------------
Again, this year's budget proposal is part of a three year plan. You will
note that it fixes the transactional fee at the proposed level over that
three year period, relying instead on increases in transactional activity.
Since transactional fees are based on realized revenue, increases in
transactional activity will somewhat increase funds to ICANN yet have much
less impact on registrars. By holding this fee steady, ICANN will also be
motivated to meet appropriate goals in acquiring funding from alternative
sources.

Your reps on the BAG, as well as numerous other stakeholders, have suggested
many alternative funding ideas to the ICANN staff, as well as encouraged
increased funding from ccTLDs and the RIRs.

While we do not see the level of funding from these sources increasing as
much as we would like in this years budget, there are reasons to be
encouraged that that will change over the next two years of this three plan.

The RIRs funding has increased over 50% this year, and holding steady on the
level of the registrar transactional fee will motivate ICANN to pursue its
commitment to increase RIR funding to more appropriate levels. The
establishing of the NRO and its MoU with ICANN will also put ICANN in a
better position to pursue that goal.

The formation of the ccNSO also creates a better situation for ICANN to
pursue agreements with ccTLD operators and increase funding from them over
the coming years.

There will be new agreements with new sTLD and gTLD operators over the next
few years. The ICANN staff has indicated that consideration will be given to
increased funding from these new TLDs: increased fees; fees associated with
new registry services, etc. As existing TLD agreements come up for renewal
they can be brought into line with such additional sources.

ICANN has committed to pursuing funding opportunities associated with other
stakeholders and commercial entities that benefit from ICANN functions.

Again, funding from these sources is not at the level we would like to see
in this year's budget proposal. But I am encouraged from the level of
participation that the ICANN staff has sought this year in formulating its
budget. I am encouraged by having seen them make numerous adjustments to the
budget based on feedback and input from numerous stakeholders, including
registrars. And I believe we will see the same level of commitment in the
upcoming years as ICANN pursues and increases these other areas of funding.

I encourage all registrars to study the entire proposal carefully and submit
your comments, concerns, and questions to your BAG reps (Rob, Elana, and
myself).

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:58 PM
To: Jean-Michel Becar
Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment

would those that have served on the budget committee provide specific
comments on just what they did?

It appears that the registrars burden will have increased 150% and I'm
doubting that our reps did the registrars any good.

would the reps on the budget committee please provide specific comments
on just how they "helped" us this time?

thanks,

-rick

Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

>Dear fellows registrars,
>
>The ICANN proposed budget for 2004 just get out for public comment.
>Enjoy the reading.
>Jean-Michel
>
>