RE: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.

["Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,
 
Thanks for taking the time to put forward your proposal.
 
Just to reiterate my point; if you create a tiered structure that is a function of domains under management then you are, I guess, assuming that the more domains you have the more profitable you are and therefore the more you can pay.
 
I, personally, don't think this is good practice as clearly having a heap of domains does mean you have a heap of money.
 
Thanks.
 
Adrian Kinderis  

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of tom barrett
Sent: Mon 7/30/2007 6:48 AM
To: owner-votingmembers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] RE: [RC Voting] Dues of $750 with "forgiveness" for those who choose to pay $250.


Bob et al,
 
The problem with raising the RC dues, is that it will result in lower registrar participation.  This is not a desirable result.
 
Theoretically, the following three principles represent how things are today:
 
First Principle:  The RC constituency should represent all ICANN Accredited Registrars. We have all paid ICANN dues.  Towards this end, all should be welcome to participate in discussions and endorse RC statements.
 
Second Principle: The RC has adopted the position that only those registrars that have paid RC dues are eligible to vote in RC elections.  This has been the only area where registrars have been restricted from participating unless they have paid the dues.
 
Third Principle: Related registrars do not receive an additional vote in RC elections.  Note: this doesn't prevent related registrars from participating or paying RC dues if they choose to do so.  They simply do not get to buy another vote.
 
I believe these first three principles should continue to be followed.  (although I think we can do more regarding the first principle.)
 
Proposal:
 
I believe a tiered dues structure makes a lot of sense for the RC.  This is common in many associations.  It is also the model being followed by ICANN for cctld AND registrar contributions.  Here is how it could work:
 
1. We define a minimum dues amount that all registrars must satisfy
2. We suggest higher amounts based on ICANN names under management.  Each registrar can decide whether they want to pay the minimum amount, the suggested higher amount or something in between.
3. Registrar contributions are published for all to see.
 
for example: Here is an example: (these numbers are completely hypothetical)
 
base RC fee: $250
tier 1: 0-5000 names: $300
tier 2: 5001-25,000 names: $350
tier 3: 25,000-100,000 names: $400
tier 4: 100,001-500,000 names $500
tier 5: 500,000-1,000,000 names: $600
tier 6: 1,000,001+ names: $750
 
I believe this sort of structure would encourage participation by more registrars.  Registrars are free to pay more than their "suggested" amount.
 
I'm aware this makes the budgeting process a bit more difficult.  But just as ICANN needs to make some assumptions in its budget about registrar contributions, I think the RC ex-com can too.
 
best regards,
 
Tom Barrett
EnCirca