RE: FW: [registrars] the iana function

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Actually Rick, you are now on the budget committee as one of our reps, so
you have access to exactly what it costsand how much of it we pay.  You may
need to ask for more detail from the staff, but I believe you are entitled
to it.

If I recall, there are 4 basic groups that fund ICANN.  Registrars,
Registries, the RIR's and the ccTLD's.

Given that the ccTLD's and the RIR's have always claimed their portion was
too high, and that they should just be paying for the service they receive
from basically what is the IANA function, it would seem that the cost of
providing the IANA function is less than the portion attributed to the RIR's
and ccTLD's.

If the IANA function left ICANN, and the RIR and ccTLD contributions to the
budget went with it, I would bet that the cost of running ICANN would not
change much, and now Registrars and Registries would be left on the hook for
the entire budget.

So I suspect that those that use the IANA function are more than paying for
it, and that it is financially in our benefit to keep those that pay around.
(I won't even begin to comment on the fact that some ccTLD's aren't paying
their share at all!)

If there is still interest, perhaps our new budget reps can dig out some
more cost details.  THe funding details of the RIR and ccTLD's are already
public.

So, thats my 2 cents from a budget standpoint, and what I remember from last
years budget committee.

On the political side, I agree with Elliot et al.  Keeping ICANN healthy and
whole, with IANA part of it is crucial, and a goal many of us have been
working towards for years now.  I personally am not about to give up the
fight now !

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Elana Broitman
Cc: Paul M. Kane; Elliot Noss; Michael D. Palage; Bruce Tonkin;
registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: FW: [registrars] the iana function




> (In fact, I'm wondering, Rick, whether you have any relationship to
> the IMS bid for the IANA function, given your involvement as CTO in
> their .org bid.  I ask only in the interest of full disclosure, given
> the sensitivity of this discussion.)

I have no relationship with IMS or the other IANA bidders. My interest
came from a funding perspective, as any increase in the IANA function is
carried by funding from the Registrars.

I hear from the recent posts "don't rock the boat" which is fine as long
as we have a position on the issue of IANA and what we get for keeping it
in the fold.

-rick