<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
- To: "'tbarrett'" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
- From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 04:51:29 +0530
- Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <000901c43de4$2571f680$6601a8c0@blackdell>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcQ95HSGkznsivPVRRCgZo4xY08l2QAAE0Sg
Hi all,
I noticed that many of you have responded on the registrars list. Tom,
Patricio etc I would urge you to also send in your responses to the budget
public discussion forum, since those are the comments that will be used to
whet this. So I would suggest to mark a copy to budget-comments@xxxxxxxxx
Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, CEO and Chairman
DirectI
--------------------------------------
http://www.directi.com
Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600
Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510
Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172
Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500
--------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tbarrett [mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:29 AM
> To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Kurt Pritz'
> Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance
> committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
>
> I have more point that I wanted to make before hitting the
> "send" button.
>
> The ICANN budget assumes new revenue sources from cctld's,
> registry services and new registrar accreditations.
>
> What happens if these revenue sources do not materialize as
> expected? Will ICANN have already committed itself to
> spending funds it will not receive?
> Who will it turn to to make up for the short-fall? This is
> why a growth cap is required.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tom Barrett
> EnCirca, Inc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tbarrett
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:01 PM
> To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Kurt Pritz'
> Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance
> committee to modify ICANN Budget proposal
>
>
> I have some serious concerns about the recent ICANN budget
> discussions.
>
> 1. The various business models deployed by registrars should
> not be an issue in determining the appropriate ICANN budget.
> The registrars should not allow this to be a distraction.
> The real issue, in my view, is to how to insure fiscal
> discipline and accountability (to ICANN tax-payers)in the
> ICANN budgeting process.
>
> 2. I'm dismayed to see that ICANN staff has factored
> registrar business models into their budgeting thinking as
> well. The ICANN staff and board should not be using various
> registrar business models as rationale for increased budget
> fees. Simply put, ICANN should be developing their budget
> based on their needs and not based on industry business
> models that may or may not exist in a few months. This is a
> slippery path. A more business-model-agnostic approach would
> be to simply add a ICANN transaction tax on the fees paid by
> the registries to ICANN.
>
> 3. As any business person knows, there are never the
> resources available to do everything on the budget "wish
> list". The process of prioritizing business needs and
> conducting "triage" is healthly for the business.
> Providing a business unlimited funds, to do anything it wants
> to do, is a recipe for failure. When an organization is not
> forced to make spending trade-offs, it leads to bloat.
>
> Just as we registrars are forced to make hard choices to how
> to spend our available funds, so too, ICANN needs to make
> hard choices in how to spend its funds. This is not bad.
> This is good and will lead to a lean and efficient ICANN.
>
> 4. The only way ICANN will be forced to make hard choices,
> is to deny it the full budget it is asking. There needs to
> be a fiscal discipline and a growth cap imposed on ICANN funding.
>
> As a quasi-governmental body, ICANN generates funds through
> taxes from registrars and registries. As tax-payers, we need
> to push for a cap on the annual growth of taxes that we pay
> to ICANN. The ICANN staff and board should agree on this
> growth cap to help enforce fiscal discipline within the ICANN
> organization. Without this, ICANN will not be truly
> motivated to pursue other sources of revenue. A growth cap
> also helps create accountability by ICANN to its tax-payers.
> Without it, ICANN will simply come back year after year
> asking for more money.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Tom Barrett
> EnCirca, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:04 PM
> To: 'Kurt Pritz'
> Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: [registrars] RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee
> to modify ICANN Budget proposal
>
>
>
> Hi Kurtz,
>
> Thanks for the fairly detailed response. I too definitely see
> your view point and appreciate the time and effort that ICANN
> and other participants have spent on this exercise. Trust me,
> despite my personal passion on this subject I cannot match
> the time effort you all would have spent on this document.
> Nevertheless I am of opinion (as are other Registrars) that
> there are certain key areas in this proposed budget that
> should change. This opinion is NOT based on quick irrational
> thinking, but as a concerted logical reasoning. I am quite
> positive and certain that all of us as Registrars will be
> able to convince ICANN on our viewpoints and am very happy
> for the audience and the discussion process.
>
> I have run through your email in a blazing speed reading
> fashion :) and thank you indeed for taking the time to pen
> out such a detailed response. I will read it once more with
> the attention and time it deserves shortly and then respond
> back with my viewpoint.
>
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Founder, CEO and Chairman
> DirectI
> --------------------------------------
> http://www.directi.com
> Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600
> Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510
> Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172
> Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500
> --------------------------------------
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:15 PM
> > To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'
> > Cc: ivanmc@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tricia.drakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > tniles@xxxxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Registrars
> > Constituency'; 'Divyank Turakhia'; 'Namit Merchant'; 'Rob Hall';
> > 'Elana Broitman'; 'Tim Ruiz'; webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > fausett@xxxxxxxxxxx; ali@xxxxxxxxxxxx; froomkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx; 'John Jeffrey'; 'Kieran Baker'
> > Subject: RE: Appeal to ICANN Finance committee to modify
> ICANN Budget
> > proposal
> >
> > Bhavin Turakin, Chairman & CEO
> > Directi.com
> >
> > [in plain text and pdf formats]
> >
> >
> > Dear Bhavin:
> >
> > Thank you for your letter outlining the concerns you have with the
> > proposed ICANN Budget. It is clear and well thought out. I
> know that
> > your letter was addressed to Vint Cerf. Vint and I communicated to
> > determine an appropriate response and he has contributed to the
> > composition of this letter.
> >
> > Please know that the ICANN staff put a great deal of
> thought and work
> > into the proposed budget model. That effort included considerable
> > discussion of the effects of rate increases on large and small
> > registrars, barriers to entry, and the DNS marketplace.
> >
> > Please take this response to your paper as constructive
> discussion and
> > not argument. The ICANN staff, board and various constituencies
> > discussed several finance models and their effects on the
> ICANN budget
> > and on the community. Many hours were spent in this
> activity - just as
> > are you doing now. Many of the arguments you make were
> considered -
> > most were adopted as part of the plan.
> >
> > First, the lack of public forum you mentioned has been
> cured. It was
> > under construction when ICANN received your letter. It will
> be posted.
> >
> > On the more important issues:
> >
> > As you probably recognized from the budget document, the
> per annum fee
> > was developed in recognition of the fact that while some of ICANN's
> > effort resulting from relationships with registrars is
> proportional to
> > the size of the registrar, significant other effort
> expended on behalf
> > of registrars is fixed for each registrar regardless of the
> number of
> > names registered.
> >
> > An example of this latter activity is ICANN addressing issues with
> > contractual compliance. There are costs related to consumer
> protection
> > and compliance activities that do not vary with the number of names
> > under registration. ICANN invests to maintain linkages with various
> > government agencies to protect consumers and help ICANN do a better
> > job of assuring that all registrars follow the rules of the road in
> > fair fashion. As ICANN adopts a more proactive contractual
> compliance
> > program during the next fiscal year, activities will incur per
> > registrar, rather than per name expenses.
> >
> > Other activities include administration of various databases and
> > responses to business and technical queries.
> >
> > So while ICANN proposed that some of the costs be allocated
> on a per
> > registrar basis and that some form of such an allocation is fair, I
> > take your queries to center around the question of whether the
> > allocation methodology in the budget is fair. ICANN submits
> that it is
> > fair, asks that you consider the following, and then asks that we
> > continue the dialogue so that a consensus is reached.
> >
> > EFFECTS ON SMALLER REGISTRARS
> > ICANN believes that smaller registrars will not be forced
> to leave the
> > market place for two reasons:
> >
> > 1) Many or most of the smaller registrars can easily
> afford the fee
> > due to revenues received by use of access to the batch pool, and
> >
> > 2) The fee will be mostly forgiven for those registrars that do not
> > employ their right to access the batch pool and for whom
> the fee would
> > severely affect the ability to carry on.
> >
> > To the first point, it has been estimated by others that over 110
> > registrars presently derive revenue from using or selling their
> > contractual right to access the batch pool in an effort to register
> > deleted names. That revenue has been estimated at $20,000
> to $30,000
> > per month for, in the words of one registrar, sitting and doing
> > nothing. (These activities should be contrasted with the business
> > models of registrars conducting standard marketing and registration
> > operations where margins and revenue streams are tighter.)
> >
> > There are a number of accreditation applications in the pipeline,
> > including several with clear indications that the
> accreditation is to
> > be used to gain access to the batch pool. ICANN anticipated none of
> > those applicants will withdraw their application based upon the new
> > fee structure. As stated in an earlier registrar posting concerning
> > the budget, none of the existing registrars earning over $240,000
> > annually should protest the fee.
> >
> > ICANN does not condone the use of accreditations that are used
> > strictly for access to secure deleted names. In fact, when
> faced with
> > an abnormally large spate of accreditation applications, ICANN
> > temporarily halted the accreditation process and convened
> an emergency
> > session of the ICANN Board to discuss whether large number of
> > accreditations should be granted in an environment where so
> many new
> > accreditations were intended solely to access the batch pool.
> >
> > With regard to the second point, forgiving fees in certain
> > circumstances will avoid situations forcing smaller
> registrars out of
> > the market.
> >
> > One registrar posting inferred that smaller registrars
> might be better
> > off as resellers rather than have to bear the burden of fees as an
> > accredited registrar. While this may be true in some cases,
> ICANN also
> > recognizes that several small registrars, especially those
> outside the
> > United States, play a meaningful role in the DNS community.
> >
> > As soon as the per annum fee was postulated, ICANN staff began
> > discussing alternatives for fair, bright line rules for
> establishing
> > forgiveness. One registrar posting suggested that ICANN
> developed the
> > theory in a knee jerk reaction to comments made during the Budget
> > Advisory Group meeting and had no ideas for creating the rules for
> > such a procedure.
> >
> > This is not true. As stated above, ICANN considered the issue ever
> > since the per annum fees were suggested. Forgiveness was
> not included
> > in an earlier version of the budget because many in the community
> > stated that it was too difficult to develop a fair method
> that could
> > not be "gamed." After discussion before and during the
> Budget Advisory
> > group meeting, ICANN worked on developing a model that is fair and
> > predictable.
> >
> > The model was not included in the budget posting because it
> is still
> > being tested with the opinions of various technical and business
> > experts in the community. That testing continues. The model
> will first
> > be built around determining which registrars are realizing revenues
> > through use of the batch pool. At this point, it can be
> said that the
> > model will require those receiving substantial revenue by
> hitting the
> > batch pool to pay the per annum fee and that those
> registrars can be
> > clearly and easily identified through the numbers and types of
> > transactions incurred.
> >
> > The second part of the model, will judge whether the
> financial status
> > and business model of the registrar require some relief. I believe
> > through interactions such as these exchanges of
> information, the best
> > model will be devised. In any case, it is ICANN's position that
> > deserving registrars should retain their accreditation.
> >
> > The fees suggested in the budget indicate that qualifying
> registrars
> > would pay approximately $10,000 annually (the $4,000
> accreditation fee
> > plus a per annum fee of approximately $6,000) and be granted the
> > ability to sell names from all registries, including
> anticipated new
> > sTLDs.
> >
> > EFFECTS ON LARGER REGISTRARS
> > I understand your viewpoint that under the present scenario, larger
> > registrars will save a huge amount of money compared to a
> budget where
> > they would be paying 37 cents a transaction instead of 25 cents.
> >
> > Looking at the other side of the same coin, the larger
> registrars (and
> > all
> > registrars) are paying at least 7 cents per transaction
> more than in
> > the present budget year. Using the numbers developed on your
> > spreadsheet, NSI is being asked to pay $536K more than last year,
> > Tucows $273K more, GoDaddy $253K more and so on. It is true
> that these
> > amounts are smaller percentage increases than paid by smaller
> > registrars, but these amounts can materially affect the
> business model
> > of the larger registrars.
> >
> > The fairness argument applies equally to these registrars.
> The larger
> > registrars are paying 40-50% increases in fees and that increase is
> > applied to a numerically large base. Your model suggests it
> is fairer
> > that the larger registry fee increase should be as high as
> $1.4MM or
> > 108%.
> >
> > In the cases of smaller registries, the six-figure increases heads
> > asymptotically to the $20-$30K range in fairly rapid order. As
> > discussed above, most of these registrars derive
> significant revenue
> > from sources other than the straight registration of domain
> names and
> > can afford the fee. Many others can be forgiven a large
> portion of the
> > fee.
> >
> > As in all fairness discussions, the topic of a judging the
> percentage
> > of a big number against a percentage of a small number must be
> > considered. In the ICANN proposed model it was thought that
> the larger
> > registrars were paying a considerable increase by any
> standard while
> > the smaller registrars' payments were increased by amounts
> consistent
> > with their business models.
> >
> > EFFECTS ON THE ICANN BUDGET
> > If the programs described in the ICANN budget are effectively
> > implemented, many registrars should not abandon their accreditation.
> > In fact, and based upon the number of accreditation applications in
> > queue, ICANN expects the number of accreditations to increase
> > significantly between now and the start of the fiscal year.
> There are
> > indications in these applications that most of these new registrars
> > will derive significant income through their access to the
> batch pool.
> > As stated above, ICANN does not condone this business model but a
> > special meeting of the board concluded that applications
> could not be
> > denied based upon apparent business model absent substantial more
> > study into this subject matter. As I stated earlier, ICANN
> estimates
> > that none of the existing applications for this purpose will be
> > withdrawn given the new fee structure.
> >
> > Similarly, new registrars will not be precluded from forgiveness at
> > the time of the first quarterly invoicing. ICANN does stand for
> > promotion of competition. It is also understood however, that
> > potential registrars should have robust financing and a
> solid business
> > pan before entering the field. (As counterpoint to your discussion,
> > when larger registrars discussed potential resources, it
> was offered
> > that a $17-$19K fee should be reasonable to an ongoing, robust
> > registrar operation.)
> >
> > Given all this, it is anticipated that ICANN will have over 250
> > accredited registrars by the start of the fiscal year. The
> increased
> > numbers should ensure the planned for revenue stream while allowing
> > some reductions in rates to the smaller registrars.
> >
> > Effects of new sources of revenue
> > ICANN agrees with every registrar posting regarding the
> generation of
> > new sources of revenue. ICANN's business model should not
> be based on
> > sole or few sources of revenue. It is not sound practice.
> New sources
> > of revenue are intended to limit any increases to the
> registrar fees
> > and to reduce them. Those revenues will be realized in time for or
> > before the following fiscal year.
> >
> > Where the budget ascribed to holding the 25 cent fee constant, it
> > should also be taken as making the same commitment to the per annum
> > fee.
> >
> > CONCLUSION
> > I realize this writing does not address all your concerns. However,
> > there is a basis from which to work. The fact that many small
> > registrars have significant revenue streams means that
> there are not
> > as many registrars adversely impacted by the fee structure
> as some may
> > have thought. Also, I believe we can develop a method for
> waiver of a
> > portion of the fees that is objective and does not result in
> > differences and partiality.
> >
> > Given the above two conditions above, a fair model can be
> created in a
> > budget that: significantly increases cash fees from large
> registrars,
> > charges registrars availing themselves of the batch pool a very
> > reasonable fee, moves to forgives the debt of smaller registrars,
> > adjusts to significant changes in the marketplace and plans
> for other
> > sources of revenue.
> >
> > Having written this document, I know the work that went into yours.
> > Everyone at ICANN appreciates the passion that went into
> your effort
> > and we all generally agree with your principles. As stated
> above, this
> > document is not intended as an end. We are looking forward to your
> > comments and those from the community.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Kurt Pritz
> > ICANN
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, #330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> >
> > +1.310.301.5809 (office)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|