RE: 2MM cap (was: [registrars] knowing when to fold 'em)

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

hi ,
 
indeed in this years budget we all did work together to get whatever we
could. judging from the process i am quite certain that the next years
budget can be an even greater consultative approach to do whats fair. having
said that however i do believe that icann has to draw a fine balance between
whats fair and what will get approved by the registrars ..... and it is
important for us to assist in that process as much as we can
 
bhavin


  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:10 AM
To: Paul Goldstone
Cc: Elmar Knipp; Bhavin Turakhia; 'Registrars List'
Subject: RE: 2MM cap (was: [registrars] knowing when to fold 'em)


Paul, I hear you, and we should revisit the $2MM cap with ICANN during the
next budget process.

What you propose for a fee calcualtion though sounds a lot like what we had
been doing. I'd like to see how the transactional fee works out before going
back to that. For example, if the fees brought in from transactions are
higher than projected (and I personally think that may be the case) the
annual portion will be reduced. We may find that it all works out pretty
well for registrars large or small.
 
Tim

 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: 2MM cap (was: [registrars] knowing when to fold 'em)
From: "Paul Goldstone" <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, October 20, 2004 11:24 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Elmar Knipp" <Elmar.Knipp@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bhavin Turakhia"
<bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars List'" <Registrars@xxxxxxxx>

Just back in town.  I see your point Tim, but ICANN efforts are partially
proportional to registrar size and as those one or two registrars grow
beyond 8 million names or $2MM cap, wouldn't ICANN's expenses for those
registrars increase while their revenue does not?  At some stage it seems
possible that the remaining registrars will pay for those missing funds even
if it's not in the immediate future.

Whether or not this individual issue will be a concern is only one of
several anyway.  Elmar's points about those registrars having an unequal
advantage and possibly avoiding future ICANN fees are even more pertinent.
There just doesn't seem to be a good reason to include the cap but several
to exclude it.

Similarly, the forgiveness clause favors another group of registrars.  The
remaining registrars who do not fit into either of these categories will be
following the same ICANN rules and regulations as the first two groups but
will not get any breaks at this time.

As a solution, I would prefer to see all registrars pay an evenly
distributed per domain fee to handle this portion of the ICANN budget.  That
way all registars would continue to be treated equal regardless of size or
business model and their fees would only increase or decrease in proportion
to their own success.

ie. (registrar budget fees) / (total # of domains) X  (# of domains at
registrar) = (individual registrar fee)

Best,
~Paul

At 10:21 AM 10/17/2004 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:


My comment was directed to Paul. I guess I replied to the wrong email.
 
Paul was concerned that the $2MM cap would mean that smaller registrars
might have to pay more to make up for some shortfall. I was pointing out
that because of the way the two components work that could not happen, and
that if one or more registrars hit that cap it would likely mean a reduction
in the annual portion (paid quarterly). Of course, as you point out, all
registrars would benefit from that reduction.
 
I was not commenting on the viability or fairness of the $2MM cap itself.

Tim
  

From: "Elmar Knipp" <Elmar.Knipp@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

Date: Sun, October 17, 2004 11:21 am 

To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

Cc: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars List'" 

<Registrars@xxxxxxxx>, "Paul Goldstone" <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>



On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:



> The $2MM cap has no affect on smaller registrars whatsoever. The annual 

> portion of the variable fee (the $3.8MM) is billed quarterly so it will 

> be paid first before any registrar will hit the $2MM cap. It will be the 

> transaction fees that cause a larger registrar to hit the cap. And 

> actually, if one or more large registrars hit that cap it will mean lower 

> fees for everyone else. 

>  

> The reason is that ICANN will have obviously underestimated what the 

> transaction fee will bring in, and the budget calls for using any excess 

> transaction fees to reduce the annual portion.



Tim,



I am not sure whether I got the point in your message. The cap has nothing 

to do with the quarterly collection of the fees. The quarterly collection 

is only the technic of charging and is independent of the yearly result.





Assume the following simplified two scenarios:



Scenario 1)



350 Registrars, nobody gets forgiveness, 1 registars has 7 million domains 

(called R-7), all other have the same number of domains, which is lower 

than 7 million (called R-all).



Every registrar has to pay 3,800,000 USD / 350 = 10,857 USD. 

Every registrar also has to pay 0.25 USD per domain year.



R-7 will have payed at the end of the year 10.857 USD + 7,000,000 * 0.25 

USD = 1,760,857 USD.





Scenario 2)



Same as above, but 7 million domains are transfered from R-all to R-7 

(20,000 domains from each R-all). R-7 has now 14 million domains.



In my view, R-7 has to pay at the end of the year 10.857 USD + 14,000,000 

* 0.25 USD = 3,510,857 USD. But in the ICANN model he only has to pay 

2,000,000 USD, the cap.





Conclusion: With the ICANN model R-7 gets a relief of 1,5 million USD or 

pays only 14 cent per domain. This seems to me inequitable.



If there is more income than expected in the budget, the balance could go 

to 50 % in the reserves and the other 50 % should reduce the variable fees 

*of all* and *not only* from the huge registrars.





Best Regards, 

Elmar