Re: [registrars] Cap it

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Paul,

last year I did not agree with the increase with the simple reason:
If we agree ICANN will use it as a sign to try it again...which was 
demonstrated this year.
If we agree this year they will do it again next year.

This behaviour is one of a monopolist.

Respectfully
Siegfried Langenbach 
 
Computer Service Langenbach GmbH (CSL GmbH)
GERMANY
 


On 27 May 2004 at 18:32, Paul Stahura wrote:

From:           	Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
To:             	"'Monte Cahn'" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
  	ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Copies to:      	"'Rob Hall'" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jean-Michel Becar'" <jmbecar@xxxxxx>,
  	"'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	[registrars] Cap it
Date sent:      	Thu, 27 May 2004 18:32:11 -0700

> I agree with Monte.  
> We need to draw a line in the sand this year, regardless.
> I said so last year.
> Last time, I said,
> "I believe we need to make clear to ICANN now that we will not support any
> increase in fees to registrars." 
> and
> "We need to warn ICANN now that while we may or may not support a budget
> increase, that the increase, if any, not be born by the registrars."
> (You can read the rest in our archive
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg01073.html )
> 
> We did not to that, but it is better late than never.
> 
> Let's not wait yet another year.
> I still believe the only way we can stop these year-after-year increases is
> to have our own cap.
> 
> Kurt said in his 5/19 email:
> "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."
> 
> Regardless of the rest, we need to at least get this commitment formalized
> before any budget-voting happens.  So I move we authorize excom to do so.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Monte Cahn
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
> 
> Well - it appears we are not left in a very good position today.  I feel
> that just laying over and letting this happen without putting forth a firm
> stance on what our position is on this issue is a big mistake.  Look what
> just happened to us as Registrars this year.  What makes you think that this
> process will not continue next year (or in 3 years) and the year after.
> Let's not be afraid to make a stance with ICANN, we are being too easy on
> this issue.  Look at the letter that Paul Kane put out.  Be the squeaky
> wheel that needs oil!
> 
> Let's draw a definite line in the sand regardless of what happens to us this
> year so that next year/years we do use our leverage with the registries and
> other sources to supplement the increase yet to come.   Also we are spending
> way too much time away from our business complaining, disagreeing with each
> other based on our relative business models and size.  Don't you think that
> ICANN knows that the top 10 Registrars control 80% of the domains today and
> the reason they were consulted with only them?  Although I see that top 10
> picture changing over the next 12 months, it is important that we all stay
> unified and together as a group on the future of our industry.  Internet
> users are predicted to double again in the next 3-5 years and we can all
> share in the registrations and complementary services if we stay together.
> 
> Just my thoughts.
> 
> 
> Monte Cahn
> Founder/CEO
>  
> Monte@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Monte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> O - 954-984-8445
> F - 954-969-9155
>  
> Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
> DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
> CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:30 PM
> To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx; 'Monte Cahn'
> Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
> 
> Exactly. Also, once they have this worked out where do you think that is
> going to leave us next year and the year after that as far as having a
> significant voice in this process?
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:58 AM
> To: Monte Cahn
> Cc: 'Rob Hall'; 'Jean-Michel Becar'; 'Registrars Constituency'
> Subject: Re: [registrars] 66% needed for approval
> 
> On 5/27/2004 10:41 AM Monte Cahn noted that:
> 
> > I think we are on to something here.....
> 
> Doubtful. It only requires the consent of ICANN to modify this contract. 
>   I think it would be pretty easy for the various registries to draw up a
> quick Christmas list of things they want in exchange for signing a revised
> contract that lifts these caps. I also expect that this could be done in a
> couple of weeks, behind closed doors and likely seal our fate permanently.
> 
> The problem of the size of the budget doesn't go away no matter how many
>   potential angles we come up with. We can either focus on that or, in my
> opinion, lose (big).
> -- 
> 
>                         -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
> 
>