Re: [registrars] Dues Structure

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

Thanks for gathering the proposals for comment.

The benefits of an RC membership are equal regardless of the size of the registrar or how much money they make.  With that in mind, it is only fair that all registrars should pay the same equal amount.

As for keeping the annual dues low, it would be a good idea to update the outdated RC website and send the URL to all registrars, along with an invitation to join the mailing list.  I wonder how many registrars are not aware of the RC, or perhaps aware of the RC but not of its benefits.  By informing more registrars, we'd get more memberships and in turn a lower per registrar fee, not to mention a larger and more unified group.  I also feel that the RC should offer pro-rated fees for registrars joining part way through the year.

For some perspective, Domain-It has been registering domains since 1996, accredited since 2000, on the RC mailing list since 2002, but we only became an official RC member last year.  Just for insight into our experience, nobody clearly explained the benefits of the RC, or approached us for dues.  Of the few occasions we approached the RC to pay dues, twice it was at year end and we would have been required to pay the full amount ($750) for just a month or two of membership, and another time, the RC was not able to take our payment.

Does anyone have the figures on how many registrars are eligible to join the RC and how many of those are actually members, or more to the point, not members?  That would give us an idea of how much outreach is needed.  FYI, according to Paul Westley in Jan '04 (RC treasurer at the time) there were ~50 official RC members, out of ~150 accredited registrars.

Here are the points I covered and feel should be implemented:

- Update RC website and inform ALL registrars of the RC site and mailing list
- Charge all registrars an equal membership fee for equal benefits
- Provide invoices and an easy way for registrars to pay membership fees
- Allow pro-rated membership fees for new members joining mid year

I also agree that retaining a part time staff person to coordinate the above and other tasks is a great idea.

Regards,

Paul Goldstone
President and CEO
Domain-It, Inc.
http://www.domainit.com


At 12:09 PM 7/30/2007, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
>Thanks all for the helpful and constructive discussion.  As you can tell, there are no easy answers to this issue.  In an effort to frame the debate and to do an informal straw poll, let me make a few points and ask a question:
> 
>First, the question has come up about the benefits of membership to the Registrar Constituency (?RC?).  A number of members recently have raised the economic decision Richard Lau discussed in his posting.  Why should a registrar pay dues vs. enjoying many of the benefits of membership without paying?  For those of you who were not at the San Juan meeting, we are trying to address this ?free rider? issue in a number of ways, and believe that the following more than justifies an investment of $250 per year. 
> 
>Current Benefits of RC Membership Not Available to Non-Members  
>Ability to vote in elections and on motions, the budget, issue statements, etc. 
>Ability to represent the RC as an officer, on the GNSO Council, the Nominating Committee, or various task forces and working groups
>Ability to attend closed sessions of RC meetings
>Ability to sit at the table at the RC meetings with better access to the limited microphones and power strips (new)
>Ability to post and receive e-mails on the member-only list that we are creating (new)
>Ability to receive access to a list archives that are organized and searchable (proposed)    
> 
>Second, I support fully the efforts to retain a part time professional staff person to support the constituency.  This is a very important time for registrars as we are at a period during which we likely will see changes to our contract with ICANN for the first time in six years, structural changes to ICANN itself, as well as structural changes to the GNSO impacting our role in the policy development process.  We need to be out in front of these issues and other policy issues that are being discussed.  A proactive RC is much more effective than just a reactive one.  I haven?t heard much in the way of objection to the proposal to retain such a staff person either during our discussion in San Juan or subsequently on the list, so for purposes of this note I will assume it is supported as long as we can work out the financing.
> 
>Finally, the issue then is how we pay for the additional services.  I absolutely agree with Marcus that the constituencies should receive some support from ICANN, so my hope is that this is a short term issue.  Just like Rob and Bob described, the dues were $750 at some point in the past and then were reduced when the need no longer existed to have them at that level.  I hope the same will be true through due to support from ICANN.  Until such a time, however, we need to work out an equitable solution to address the shortfall.  In the budget, we proposed a fixed rate with an ability to seek forgiveness, but are open to other options if the membership prefers.  Here are the options I have seen thus far.
>  
>    * Fixed dues without forgiveness ? about $650 per member.  Everyone treated equally, but we might lose members who can?t afford the dues. 
>    * Fixed dues with forgiveness ? current proposal ? $750 per member with ability to seek reduction to $250 based on need. 
>    * Fixed dues with a collections plate (Connelly Proposal) ? registrars that can afford it donate additional amounts to the RC, but no additional benefits for donating. 
>    * Tiered dues based on domain names under management (Barrett Proposal) ? large registrars must pay more based on size, but no additional benefits for paying more. 
>    * Tiered dues based on registrar choice (Lau Proposal) ? maybe one tier at $1250 and another at $250 ? all registrars have an equal right to choose between Gold and Silver membership levels, but the Gold level members receive additional benefits in addition to the ones enumerated above (this may require changes to the Bylaws depending on what incentives to join the Gold level are included -- e.g. weighted voting). 
> 
>I apologize if I mischaracterized or missed any of the proposals, but it would be helpful if folks let us know which of the 5 options they would support (maybe more than one).  
> 
>Thanks.
> 
>Jon
>