Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)

[JP <jp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Patricio,

I believe you misunderstood my words.

Parava Networks is obviously a company in the Registration business,
regardless of the model you use, you DO registrations, you take care of your
own registrations and you are the registrar of record; therefore you know
you will have to respond to your customers, and you are legally liable if
you screw up with their records. You accepted that responsibility and for
that you are "worthy" of the "ICANN accredited" seal, and worthy of being
called a "fellow registrar" and the respect of your peers.

At no point I said that it is fair that the Registrars  have to carry most
of the weight of the budget or that ICANN can spend money at their own
discretion.

But I will not accept nor support the call to move everything to a per
transaction fee, because this petition has nothing to do with the budget,
and all to do with whom is paying for part of it, including the costs of
facilitating and maintaining the accreditation of NOT INTERESTED IN
REGISTERING registrars.

JP



> From: "Patricio Valdes" <valdes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:17:50 -0500
> To: "'JP'" <jp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Nikolaj Nyholm'" <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'Dan Halloran'" <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
> 
> JP
> 
> So I assume that "ALL the responsibilities and obligations that been an
> "ICANN Accredited Registrar" carry" as you mention means ponying up to ICANN
> every time they desire? I assume you mean us, Parava Networks, an ICANN
> accredited Registrar since 1999 are not worhty of being one? I assume you
> mean I should work 12 hours days and weekends so I can pay for ICANN's
> travel expenses and $100k a year employees?
> 
> It is not fair for me to pay for other peoples trips to Malaysia and pay
> aprox. $800k per ICANN meeting as established in the Budget.
> 
> I can go on if you wish.
> 
> Patricio Valdes
> Parava Networks, Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JP
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:32 AM
> To: Nikolaj Nyholm; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: Dan Halloran; twomey@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
> 
> 
> Nikolaj and All,
> 
> I agree, and we support your position, and I would like to add that we do
> not think it is fair to ask successful Registrar models to pay for the fixed
> expenses of "Registrars" which are not interested or can not take ALL the
> responsibilities and obligations that been an "ICANN Accredited Registrar"
> carry.
> 
> Is not only the ones selling their access to the batch pool; The ICANN
> accredited "seal of approval" has become a very desirable "thing to have" to
> improve the reputation of companies/websites that are many times not even
> interested in the registration business at all. They will became accredited
> and display "the seal", but actually never become operational. If there is a
> cost incurred by ICANN to maintain this accreditations I do not think it is
> fair to ask me to pay for them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> JP Vazquez
> 
>> From: Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:11:11 +0200
>> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
>> Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx, twomey@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)
>> 
>> 
>> Extensive debate both in favour and disapproval of the proposed ICANN
>> budget has been flourishing on the Registrars' list during the last
>> few days. Rather than take part in the current debate, I wish to sum
>> up the position of Ascio, a medium-sized Registrar. I don't know if it
>> is useful; I don't know if it is of any significance; I don't know if
>> our opinion is widely supported; but, we'd like to go on the record
>> with our position.
>> 
>> 
>> o It is in Ascio's interest to have a well functioning ICANN;
>> 
>> o We wish to contribute financially to a well functioning ICANN;
>> 
>> o We acknowledge that Registrars take up a larger administrative
>> burden than is covered in current annual license fees, especially if
>> ICANN is to live up to overseeing that current Registrar obligations
>> are met;
>> 
>> o We are, however, concerned that there is no cap on the new per
>> Registrar variable fee, and propose a cap is set at a reasonable
>> amount like $25.000/year;
>> 
>> o We believe that ICANN should take good care to ensure that future
>> registry contracts (both sTLDs and .net during a reassignment) ensures
>> ICANN to levy annual variable per Registry license fees that cannot
>> automatically be passed on to Registrars through price hikes as in the
>> current Registry contracts; and
>> 
>> o We finally believe that funds could and should be sought within the
>> constituency members of the GAC, as this is a significant new area
>> where ICANN has to direct attention in the light of the WSIS
>> initiatives.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Nikolaj Nyholm
>> nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx
>