RE: RE: [registrars] budget committee

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Since we will be having a formal vote regarding our budget committee reps, 
I'd like send out my thoughts to the list.

1) I think I'm the only person "running" who is not involved
in other formal registrar constituency committees/excom/roles.
I think it is a good idea to spread-out the involvment across more people.

2) I'm not involved in any registries so I don't think I have a conflict
there.
I'll focus on representing registrars' point of view.

3) I think the registrars should fund the budget, not the registries.
If the registries pay, it will be passed to us anyway.

4) eNom was a small registrar (I've been involved since fall of 1997)
so I know what that is like, and I know the concerns of larger registrars,
as well.

5) I think we need a strong ICANN: 1.0, 2.0, X.0 or whatever, 
and I'm not opposed to paying more if we benefit more.  
Direct benefit to registrars, sure, but we shouldn't forget
benefit to other groups indirectly benefits us too.

6) I, like everyone, am for an efficient ICANN

Thanks
Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:40 AM
To: 'bryan@interaccess.com'; Rob Hall
Cc: wessorh@ar.com; Registrars List
Subject: RE: RE: [registrars] budget committee


Just for clarification, I thought of Bryan as the small one, Rob as medium,
and me as large (pretty funny considering my height)'-)

-----Original Message-----
From: bryan@interaccess.com [mailto:bryan@interaccess.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:20 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: wessorh@ar.com; Elana Broitman; Registrars List
Subject: Re: RE: [registrars] budget committee


Elana, Rick, Rob, and others,

I represented a small registrar on the Budget Committee, as well.  Although,
Allegiance Telecom is a reasonably large company, even if it's a tiny
registrar, so that might not count.

Rick has a good point, though.  I believe that the Registrar's
representatives to the Budget Committee were fairly well distributed last
year.  As an independant, fairly unbiased person at this time, I would
recommend that the constituency select a broad mix, again (at least one rep
from large registrar, and one rep from a smaller registrar).

IMHO, it also worked well that one of the reps was also a member of the
Executive Committee.  It makes it easier when coordinating constituency
efforts.

-Bryan


----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2002 11:50 am
Subject: RE: [registrars] budget committee

> Rick,
> 
> I would guess that Elana is refering to me.  As you know, we are 
> not yet in
> the top 10 Registrars, but we still do pay a fair amount of fees 
> to ICANN.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:45 AM
> To: Elana Broitman
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] budget committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Elana Broitman wrote:
> 
> > Dear Registrars - I would be honored to continue to represent the
> > constituency as one of the 3 registrar members of the ICANN budget
> > committee.  I have diligently worked - together with my fellow 
> registrar> representatives - to represent the constituency's 
> interests, understand
> the
> > detalis of the ICANN budgeting process and budget proposals, and 
> ensurethat
> > registrar interests have an opportunity to influence the ICANN 
> funding> process.
> 
> > We have had a good team representing small and large registrars,
> > and I would recommend that the constituency maintain a 
> representation of
> the
> > various registrar business models.
> 
> 
> Who is it that was represneting small registrars on the budget 
> committee.
> thanks,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> 
>