Re: [registrars] ICANN DNSO Budget & Its impact on the Registrar Constituancy

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

>>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.

That's good to hear. Does the consensus status attached to the
recommendation matter at all?

>>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.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - "bottom-up funding" was simply a label that I was
applying to describe our current state. Top-down would be the federalist
view embodied in the proposal that the NC voted on today. The rest of my
post was just thinking out loud - basically that the current self-funded
model doesn't favor everyone - it favors those that can pay their own way.
No implications attached to that thought, it was purely an observation.

>>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).

Heh - I'd love to be in that position, but we certainly aren't ;) Tucows is
pretty much the aggregate of a whole lot of smaller businesses just like
CORE - if they don't do well, then we don't do well.

>>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..

Support for the proposal voted on today you mean? This was clear in the
vote - only the registry and registrar (sort of ) constituency stood to
oppose it...

>>Are you willing for we registrars to absorb their burden as well Ross ?

>>Frankly, I'm not !

em, no. see above ;)

 Take care,

-rwr

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ross Wm. Rader
  To: Ken Stubbs ; Registrars@dnso.org
  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