<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] ICANN DNSO Budget & Its impact on the Registrar Constituancy
Fellow registrars...
Based on conversations with staff & various
board members, I would not expect support from the board for this
proposal (even though it passed thru the council) .. The board, led by members
of the other SO's still appears to be non-supportive on this issue.
In previous discussions regarding budget issues
there has always been a strong concern over excessively burdening the
registrars constituency with ICANN financial burdens like this.Significant concerns have also been expressed in other
meetings in the past by registrars to our representatives on the ICANN
budget committee and they have done an admirable job in their attempts to
minimize this burden.
If you wish to present your proposal for a
bottom-up/ self funding model to the constituency Ross, then please do
so. Based on 35 years of business experience
and my past experiences in ICANN, I feel very strongly that a model like
your discussing would eventually result in imposing significant
additional financial burdens on the Registrars in the form of larger
assessments and I, personally am not at all comfortable with
it.
This burden could, hypothetically, become
intolerable if we Registrars ended up
absorbing a "huge share" of the projected "at-large" outreach costs which could
end up costing in the $1-2 million dollar range.
Maybe Tucows would be in a position to absorb these
additional costs but I don't believe you will find much sympathy for this model
(given the current "tough times" we are currently going thru) among
many of the other registrars. (especially the smaller
ones).
Ken Stubbs
p.s.
I would also like to point
out that strong support for the issue was evidenced by the Business Constituency as well as the
ISP's..
Are you willing for
we registrars to absorb their burden as well Ross ?
Frankly, I'm not !
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:56
PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN DNSO
Budget & Its impact on the Registrar Constituancy
Ken/All,
It should also be noted that the motion carried
- which means that the
request has been endorsed as a 2/3 consensus vote by
the NC and passed on to
ICANN - which has the effect of not requiring
minority views to be passed on
with the proposition. It does allow us to
table our dissenting views for
inclusion in the record however...Ken, what
are the chances that the ASO and
PSO are going to buy into/oppose this
proposition? A bottom-up/self-funding
model seems to be intuitively more
efficient than what was proposed today
but this would favor commercially
oriented constituencies over others -
which can be double edged. As much as
we are commercial interests, the
non-coms and individuals buy product from
us in significant quantities.
Their weaknesses could turn into our
weaknesses.
I was disappointed that our vote was, in effect, nullified
by the voting
pattern of our reps. The tally by my count was 14-3 in favor,
but with one
of our reps voting yes, one voting no and the other one not
present, our
view was somewhat muted.
As BobC would say
:(
-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs"
<kstubbs@digitel.net>
To:
<Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent:
Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: [registrars] ICANN DNSO
Budget & Its impact on the Registrar
Constituancy
Fellow
Registrars....
In the Names Council meeting Today i Voted against a
request to have ICANN
fund approx $170,000 of the DNSO budget for the next
year.
As you are all well aware, a substantial amount of the ICANN
budget is
funded thru assessments on the registrar constituency (approx
50%). This
means that of any increase in the ICANN budget, 50 cents
of each dollar is
assessed to the Registrars.
Each constituency
should pay its fair share of the DNSO operation and this
proposal would
pass a substantial burden from the other constituencies over
to our
constituency and I do not feel this is appropriate.
In my opinion,
ICANN staff supported my position as well and I would not
expect the
proposal to transfer this burden to be approved.
Today's actions only
reinforces my concerns that there may be attempts this
year to impose
additional financial burdens for ICANN operations & outreach
(i.e. at
large outreach) on us and we Registrars need to be even
more
pro-active.
The impact on the registrars could be very
significant if we do not work
hard and organize for increased
participation by ALL of our members in
lobbying & advocating within
ICANN to prevent this from happening.
Some constituencies (i.e.
Business & Non-Commercial) have the attitude that
they support
ICANN thru the purchase of domain names thru us and we
registrars should
use the funds that we collect from the end user to support
ICANN and that
they should not be asked to fund ICANN thru their
constituencies. I
disagree strongly with this view.
We are not allowed to pass these
ICANN assessments thru to our customers as
additional charges (as Telco's
are currently allowed to do) and as such are
forced in many cases to "eat"
these expenses.
It is for exactly the reasons I point out above that
ALL the members of the
constituency need to be aware of these issues and
work hard to keep us from
being additionally burdened.
Ken
Stubbs
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|