DNSO Archives: [registrars]

> We are members of the ICANN annual budget group (irbg@dotster.com)
> representing US Registrars in the ICANN budget process. The Preliminary FY
> 01-02 Budget has been posted to the ICANN website, and we ask that each of
> you review the document and provide us with constructive comments ASAP or by
> this Friday or next Monday (March 5). We realize this is short notice, but
> it comes down to stopping what you're doing, printing out the budget and
> related documents and reading it--then writing us at
> irbg@dotster.com. Also attached are notes from the most recent
> ICANN Finance Group's teleconference chaired by Mike Roberts.
>
> Our response to the budget is the following:
>
> A) with registrars providing over 50% of revenues to ICANN, we are the major
> funding mechanism for ICANN. We think, and want to know if you agree, that
> it is of major concern that ICANN has proposed a change in the way registrar
> fees are collected. They suggest that registries alone will be charged by
> ICANN, with the registries collecting registrar fees, rather than invoicing
> registrars individually, as is the current practice. In removing the direct
> relationship between registrars and ICANN, we feel that our collective voice
> (which we all agree needs to be more formalized, collective, and vocal) will
> be weakened before ICANN and that any influence we may have now or in the
> future will be minimized. Being directly linked to ICANN provides
> registrars with leverage when it comes to issues of concern to registrars.
> It is of value to ICANN that there are accredited registrars in
> com/net/org--they know who we are and they have the staff to send out fewer
> than 100 quarterly invoices. On the other hand, ICANN needs to resolve its
> problem with ccTLDs and their unaccredited registrar counterparts. If ICANN
> needs to design a mechanism to work with the ccTLD registries, that
> arrangement should be worked out between those parties and separately from
> the already institutionalized practice whereby accredited registrars are
> invoiced.
>
> PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT ON THE PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING:
>
> http://www.icann.org/financials/staff-paper-cost-recovery-10nov00.htm
>
> and make your comments known to us.
>
>
> B) Concerning the Revenue side of the budget:
>
> http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-19feb01.htm
>
> We have the following basic questions:
> 1) Where is the revenue coming from; and
> 2) How are they getting the money?
>
> We don't think ICANN will be able to collect the $1.496 million from
> ccTLDs as it projects (or tbd). They got only $25,000 last year. So, where will
> they get the money? It will fall back on the gTLDs, which affects us
> registrars.
>
> C) Accreditation Fees/Application Fees/Accreditation Fees (see budget).
> This is confusing terminology. Application fees ($1,000) should be reflected
> in the budget. "Accreditation" fees should be called "Annual Dues" or
> "Renewal Fees" and moved up to the Continuing Expenses section of the
> budget, while the initial accreditation fees should remain in the One Time
> Revenue section.
>
> D) See Special Project Grants: Is the At-Large Study serving us? Read
note (e).
>
> E) Given the share of funds paid by registrars, there should be a separate
> budget line item that reflects resources (staff, professional services,
> etc.) spent on the accreditation process for contract compliance monitoring
> and enforcement.
>
>
> Maureen E. Ruppert, BulkRegister.com
> John Tai, Dotster
> Rob Hall, Domains.ca

[registrars]

[registrars] FW: Request for ICANN Budget Input