RE: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Only ICANN accredited registrars are allowed to directly interact with ICANN
accredited Registries and avail themselves of the opportunities that it
affords. So I see the transactional fee as being a reasonable way to collect
payment for that. Basing the majority of our fees on realized revenue is
fair and provides predictability in our costs.

And, while I certainly understand the concerns of the smaller registrars in
regards to the amount, a per-registrar fee also makes sense for the reasons
Thomas states below.

In regards to the portion of the budget being funded by registrars, Paul and
Kurt are the first to admit that it is out of proportion to the services we
receive. They have said repeatedly that they want to change that. Their
actions and the budget process in general this year demonstrate to me that
they intend to follow through.

The registrars' contribution has been out of whack since the beginning. That
fact as well as the missed funding opportunities is not the doing of the
current ICANN administration. I believe they are truly trying to fix it and
I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

We have an opportunity this year to possibly get a cap on our fees for the
next three years. That they are willing to even entertain that idea tells me
they are serious about making a change. I encourage us all to not miss that
opportunity and push this off on the registries. If we do, we will simply
find ourselves in the same boat next year with no real influence to change
anything.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:17 AM
To: Siegfried Langenbach
Cc: Registrars Constituency; Kurt Pritz
Subject: Re: [registrars] Resellers a burden upon ICANN

Siegfried,

I agree to all your points especially on the details part. Take Schlund
as an example for the moment. We have had maybe 5 to 10 occasions over
the last 4 years where ICANN had to contact us and even less requests
towards ICANN from us. We are very willing to pay a fair fee for this
but I think that almost $200000 a year are very excessive for such a
service.
I would guess that the truely operational costs are not very high in
total and that most of the money is spend on the policy making site.
In regard to this we all get the same out of it because we all have the
same contracts no matter of small or large. At the end a funding model
has to be found which reflects this and not a modell were someone
is punished for doing a good job.

tom

Am 09.06.2004 schrieb Siegfried Langenbach:
> 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  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w