RE: [registrars] Dues Structure

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

I think that Paul makes a number of important and helpful points below.


 

The consensus of the ExCom was to have an equal dues structure to avoid
all of the issues related to a multi-tiered structure based on registrar
size or uneven benefits that folks have raised over the past few days.
The one distinction between what Paul has written and what we have in
the current proposal is a limited ability for a member to seek a fee
reduction based on need.  We envisioned using this to encourage new
members and to keep a few members that really can't afford the extra
$500.  It is not intended for registrars who just don't want to pay the
extra $500.  As Tom Barrett suggested, we don't expect too many
applications for fee reductions.  But it's nice to have some flexibility
in case of extenuating circumstances.  As Bob suggested in his recent
post, I think those members that seek a reduction should remain
confidential (similar to the system that ICANN employees with its fee
forgiveness).  In my opinion, however, the information needs to be kept
confidential by the four officers (and by the staff member who monitors
the account) and not just by the Treasurer in that the fee reduction
should be authorized by a majority vote of the officers voting, not just
by a unilateral decision of the Treasurer.

 

With dues at $750, pro-ration definitely makes sense for new members.
Finally, invoicing dues and payment went much better last year than in
prior years.  We hope to continue that improvement this year after a
budget is approved.

 

Paul also raises a good point about increasing membership.  Our
membership has grown 20% YoY in the past fiscal year.  Had it not, the
current dues proposal would probably be in the $900-$1,000 range.  With
that said, we could do better.  I attended the most recent ICANN
regional gathering and spoke with 5-7 solid prospective members.
Hopefully, that should help bring in some members and reduce fees in
future years.  Also, with ICANN's new RADAR database, it should help our
ability to reach out to more prospective members.  I also agree with
Paul that the website has been in need of improvement for many years.
I'd like to have a simple site that contains our key documents, contact
information, a way to pay dues, and the e-mail archive that only is
available to members.  Dan Warner and Rob Hall are working on developing
that capability.  

 

I finally want to make a point about the $750 this year.  As you
probably know, the ICANN Board has approved a process for changes to the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) that includes a specific role
for consultations between ICANN and the Registrar Constituency
http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm#k.  Thus, this year
we are charged with negotiating changes to the RAA on behalf of every
ICANN-accredited registrar.  How much would each member incur in legal
fees and internal resources in individually negotiating a contract with
ICANN?  In my mind, $750 would be quite reasonable to have a group
negotiate a contract on my behalf and enable me to have direct input on
the negotiation process and the substance of the agreement if I want it.
This process, of course, will be in addition to the ICANN public comment
period.  Also, we envision using the newly created member-only list for
most of the internal discussions related to the RAA.  This benefit of
membership, of course, is on top of all the other benefits that we have
discussed earlier in the week.  I hope folks agree that even at $750,
the RC is a worthwhile membership and will support the budget proposed.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon   

 

________________________________

From: Paul Goldstone [mailto:paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:24 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Dues Structure

 

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


<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.
  

1.	Fixed dues without forgiveness - about $650 per member.
Everyone treated equally, but we might lose members who can't afford the
dues. 
2.	Fixed dues with forgiveness - current proposal - $750 per member
with ability to seek reduction to $250 based on need. 
3.	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. 
4.	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. 
5.	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