ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] ICANN budget teleconference?

  • To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN budget teleconference?
  • From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:51:37 +0530
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB540143D003@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcViNosk+zHhxzDaSymqZXHf2kJxdwAPiwQAAAEyebA=

Hi bruce,

I think that sounds great - I will coordinate with Kurt and try to arrange

With regards to the level of registrar charging - there seems to have been
no change. However there was a clause in the last year budget about
utilizing any excess collected over 12.8 mil as 50% reserve and 50% for set
off against the registrar fixed fees. I do not find that clause or any
derivative thereof in the document. Infact I was under the assumption that
it was intended that clause would help reduce the fixed fees going forward
as the number of transactions increase, and also reduce the percentage
contribution of registrars to the entire budget. Maybe Kurt will be able to
throw some light on that. I realize that with an increasing budget a cap on
the total may not make sense for a growing ICANN. But even if it were
suitably modified to give SOME relief to registrars (I have a few ideas in
mind) that could help.

Meanwhile I would urge all other Registrars to take a detailed look at the


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:03 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] ICANN budget teleconference?
> Hello Bhavin,
> I recommend we arrange a teleconference between members of 
> the registrar constituency and ICANN to discuss the new budget.
> I don't think the level of registrar charging has changed 
> since the last budget, but the budget in total has grown 
> significantly - due to growth in domain name volumes and also 
> additional fees for .net.
> As usual 66% of registrars must agree to be invoiced 
> directly, or we will all be invoiced through the registries.
> Regards,
> Bruce

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>