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

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ross here.
We all signed contracts that say if we vote "no" to paying ICANN... then we
pay anyway (via the registries).
We all knew what we were getting into when we signed.
As I've said more than a few times over the years, the only long-term
solution (without changes to the current contracts) is for alternative
sources (non-registrar, non-registry) to pony up more funds or for ICANN to
spend less money.
I've believed for a long time that it will be easier (better?) to solve the
problem of getting alternative sources of funds (address registries, ccTLD,
other registry services, governments, large companies, TLD auctions,
whatever) than the other, in my opinion, harder (because we want ICANN to be
stronger) problem to solve (ICANN doing less by spending less).


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 11:25 AM
To: Jay Westerdal
Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Proposed budget is out for public comment

On 5/18/2004 2:20 PM Jay Westerdal noted that:

> It is about time Registries pay there fair share. 

The registries aren't the problem. The address registries, ccTLDs and 
other under-contributing parties are.

Let's stay focused on where the real problems are. I don't see the 
registries as being the culprits here - or as a real source of alternate 
funding that won't come out of our pockets anyways...

-- 

                        -rwr








                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org