Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@xxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

while I can understand Thomas idea, I prefer the way Bob looks at it 
asking for details of the work spend for registrars.

If I use a lawyer he normally gives me a detailed list of activities 
together with his invoice. If we have to pay the bill I would strongly 
request something equivalent.

Pardon, but from my personal experience I am at all NOT convinced 
that ICANN is working efficient. On the contrary we know from the 
ccTLDs that ICANN likes to be envolved in additional matters 
enlaging the competence.

siegfried

On 9 Jun 2004 at 10:14, Thomas Keller wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:14:34 +0200
From:           	Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:             	"Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Copies to:      	Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>,
  	Kurt Pritz <pritz@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        	Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN
Organization:   	Schlund + Partner AG

> Dear Bob,
> 
> I guess the point Paul was trying to make was that the complains to ICANN 
> are not related to the amount of registrations a registrar has. In other
> words in reality the registrars with more domain names to not cost ICANN
> more money than smaller registrars with less registrations. Since there
> seems to be no interrelation to the amount of domains in this regard and on
> the other hand certainly is no relation to domains on the policy cost site
> I would like to raise the question why the fees should be domain related
> at all. This might not be a very popular viewpoint but shouldn't it ,as a matter 
> of fairness and equal opportunity, be the same fee for all of us if we all 
> receive the same service? In theory I do not really see why someone with a 
> successful (or different) business model should be punished by having
> to pay more for the same service than anyone else. The way almost every tax 
> system is build to take up this analogy again is that the ones with more 
> contribute more to the public good than the others but it is always
> predictable and there is always a cap. The system I would like to see
> only relies on caped fixed fees which might even be calculated by the
> amount of registrations held but has no additional variable or
> transaction fees. Such a system could look like a ordinary tax table:
> 
> These figures are just examples. I randomly picked numbers .-)
> 
> 0       -    10000 $10000 (Basic fee to be able to play the game)
> 10000   -    50000 $15000
> 50000   -   100000 $20000
> 100000  -   500000 $50000
> 500000  -  1000000 $80000
> 1000000 -  2000000 $100000
> 2000000 -  3000000 $1200000
> 3000000 -  4000000 $1400000
> ...
> 
> In the case the money collected in such a way should not sum up to the
> amount demanded by ICANN I would suggest that ICANN is looking for
> alternative sources of funding .-)
> 
> Best,
> 
> tom
> 
> Am 08.06.2004 schrieb Robert F. Connelly:
> > Dear Registrars:
> > 
> > In attempting to justify the large fixed fee for *all* registrars, Paul 
> > Twomey stated that much of the large load handled by ICANN staff is created 
> > by irate registrants;  and he implied that smaller registrars cause a 
> > disproportionate number of grievances*.
> > 
> > It appeared to me from the continuing discussion that many of these 
> > complaints result from the burgeoning number of resellers.
> > 
> > The discussion turned to whether resellers give registrants adequate notice 
> > of who their registrar actually is.  It *is* a contractual requirement upon 
> > registrars -- but do resellers give sufficient notice?
> > 
> > I can tell you that we have many cases of frustrated attempts to transfer 
> > from a registrar which uses resellers.  We have hard copies of 
> > authorizations from registrants, including registered corporate seals, 
> > before we ever queue a transfer request.  Often, the registrar of record 
> > tells us we must clear that transfer through their reseller:-(
> > 
> > Perhaps we should load our complaints upon ICANN;-}
> > 
> > Regards, BobC, for PSI-Japan, Inc.
> > 
> > * Footnote:  I advised Paul that I would classify his statement as 
> > anecdotal unless he could quantify it.  It would be interesting to see 
> > whose "names are on the blotter";-}
> > 
> > Just as long as the quantification does not become a new line item in the 
> > budget;-{
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Gruss,
> 
> tom
> 
> (__)        
> (OO)_____  
> (oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
>   | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
>   w w w  w