RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we all clearly understand your example -- register 1000 names
and pay ICANN for 10.  Paying the fee on 1% of transactions while the
rest of the market pays on 99% (assuming a 1% add grace delete rate for
mistakes and testing) sounds like a very attractive model to your
client, but it's not equitable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 1:37 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; Jay Westerdal; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee


> The ICANN Transaction Fee
> is paid to ICANN to support its hopefully worthwhile endeavors,
> including ensuring registrar compliance with contractual requirements.

e.g. the consensus deletes policy?

> The issue is whether registrars that register names under the
> "traditional" registration business model should be financially
> supporting registrars that register names under the "register and
> delete" business model by essentially paying their share of the ICANN
> fee.  I think not.

Whether the "traditional" business model constitutes primarily selling
whois
and .com zone change information instead of registering domain names is
probably open to debate.  However, it is clear that there is still
misunderstanding of the model.  ICANN *is* collecting fees on this
activity,
and fees that would not otherwise be collected.  It is the same reason
that
it is a net plus for the registry - ultimately, names *are* registered
which
would not be registered otherwise.

Going back to the 1000 names example, since it was not clear enough...
Let's
say that out of a batch of 1000 names, there are 10 names that the
registrant finds would be worth $10 each per year in revenue.  Those 10
names will be kept, ICANN will collect $2.50 and Verisign will collect
$60.
If there was a 25 cent fee, then those 10 names will not be registered
(because the exercise would cost $250 and net $100), and ICANN collects
nothing.

Now, if 5 of those names set off an alarm in Jay's trademark monitoring
system, he collects a fee for nailing them down when they are dropped,
ICANN
gets another $1.25, and Verisign gets  another $30.

Maybe I'm dense, but $2.75 pays more of a business class seat from LAX
to
Morocco than a system that pays ICANN nothing.

>If the economics are such that the
> "register and delete" business model can't sustain the same 25 cent
fee
> that all registrars have to pay when registering a name, so be it --
> then ICANN wouldn't have to spend any of its resources regulating that
> activity.

ICANN is not spending any resources regulating that activity.  ICANN
asked
Verisign to drop in on the RC meeting in Mar Del Plata to discuss the
issue
at the behest of registrars whose business model apparently includes
keeping
an eye on other registrars.  Verisign is perfectly able to manage its
relationships with registrars, said it was not causing a problem, and
ICANN
does not have a horse in this race.

There are doubtless many worthy causes that could use a quarter every
time a
domain name is registered, but do I understand correctly that between
your
25 cents and Jay's 25 cents, we are up to 50 cents?  Or are these
alternative proposals which share the common theme of "making someone
pay
something to somebody" but we don't care to whom?