Re: [registrars] icann budget position (ascio)

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>]

one question that the budget didn't answer is "how much does it cost to 
support the registrars?"
without that answer we can't argue about "pay for use"

-rick

JP wrote:

> 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
> >    
>