RE: [registrars] Constituency versus Trade Association

["Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>]

Tim:

Thanks for this. I get all of that. It is structural and technical. The
benefit or use of a trade association for issues that exist outside of the
ICANN process is something I get. My questions more relate to the practical
and to situations (most in my mind) that do relate to ICANN.

I cannot, in my mind, understand the practical tactical difference between
the RC and a TA in dealing with, for instance, new gTLDs or privacy/whois.
It would seem to me that the RC would be the right place for registrars to
address those issues making a trade association only interesting at the
margins. Mike, I would be interested in your thoughts in this regard.

Regards

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Denton [mailto:tim@tmdenton.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: Elliot Noss; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency versus Trade Association
>
>
> Elliot:
>
> If I may presume to add my views here, the difference beween a
> constituency
> within the GNSO and a trade association is that the latter is able to
> address a broad number issues inside and outside of ICANN, to act as a
> lobby, is not confined to the current ICANN-accredited
> membership, nor bound
> to a fee structure appropriate to the aims of the
> ICANN-constituency. So it
> can have graduated membership fees, for instance, or take on
> European issues
> with the EC, or national issues within the United States or
> Canada, if this
> is agreed upon by its membership.
>
>
> The trade association is incorporated, the ICANN-constituency is not. A
> Board of Directors with all that that implies, runs the
> corporation. Let us
> call it the Association, for want of a better word.
>
> The Association might also act for the constituency, or the
> constituency and
> the Association could carry on with somewhat different memberships. Thus
> Mike's suggestion that the membership in the constuency might be free of
> charge would make some sense if there was another different legal entity
> providing the brains and funds for interventions before ICANN,
> the ITU, the
> EC, the US Congress, and so forth, as the membership decided.
>
> I am NOT repeat NOT taking a position on any issue inside the constituency
> by pointing these things out.
>
> Timothy Denton, BA,BCL
> 37 Heney Street
> Ottawa, Ontario
> Canada K1N 5V6
> www.tmdenton.com
> 1-613-789-5397
> tmdenton@magma.ca
> 1-819-842-2238 North Hatley
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Elliot Noss
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:11 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Constituency versus Trade Association
>
>
> Mike:
>
> It would be helpful here if you could expand on your view of the
> difference
> between the constituency and a trade association, perhaps with specific
> references to actions that one group would take that the other wouldn't.
> Even more helpful would be wrapping some conext around this such
> as painting
> these actions in the context of, say, new gTLDs or whois/privacy.
>
> I confess I don't have a view on what you say below, but
> primarily because I
> could not distinguish in my head between the two sufficiently. Especially
> given that one group is formally inside the process and the other is not.
>
> Also, it may be helpful if you could make those comments in light of the
> fact that a number of companies are accredited registrars but do not
> actively register domain names.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards
>
> Elliot Noss
> Tucows inc.
> 416-538-5494
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:05 AM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: [registrars] Constituency versus Trade Association
> >
> >
> > Hello All:
> >
> > I am writing a more comprehensive email on this subject but
> > thought I would
> > throw 2 of my cents in now.
> >
> > When the Constituency was formed back in Berlin it was purposely
> > designed to
> > be light weight to prevent some of the bureaucracy that has managed to
> > dominate the list lately. As the industry has developed there
> are pressing
> > needs for its members to organize and advocate common
> positions. However,
> > this should be done primarily through a trade association and not
> > through an
> > ICANN constituency.
> >
> > The solution I believe is rather simple, the constituency no longer is
> > required to pay ICANN to participate in the GSNO. ICANN accredited
> > registrars currently pay ICANN a US$4,000 for the first TLD, and
> > US$500 for
> > each additional TLD yearly accreditation fee. Assuming you are
> a small to
> > mid-sized registrar that is $6,000 per year in ICANN
> accreditation fees to
> > provide registration services in the .com. .org, .net, .info and
> > .biz TLDs.
> > This is in ADDITION to the per domain name assessment charged
> to registrar
> > per domain name under management. This year that fee is approximately 12
> > cents per domain name per year although it is expect to increase
> > to 18 cents
> > per domain name year.
> >
> > In summary that is a lot of money that EVERY ICANN accredited
> registrar is
> > paying, and does not include those fees that registrars must
> incur if they
> > want to attend any of the ICANN regional meeting. It is my
> humble opinion
> > that registrars should not have to pay to participate in an organization
> > which they are already funding.
> >
> > Now I know that some registrars will argue that $750 is not a lot
> > of money,
> > and that if people can not afford it they should not be in the business.
> > However, I respectfully disagree with this statement.
> >
> > My approach which was rejected in the drafting committee, is that every
> > ICANN accredited registrar should be allowed to participate
> > within the ICANN
> > registrar constituency free of charge. By allowing every ICANN
> accredited
> > registrar to vote this would help legitimate positions that we take. If
> > larger registrars, a couple of small to mid-size registrars, want
> > to retain
> > staff let them under the auspices of a trade association.
> >
> > I am disheartened that the focus of by-law revisions over the
> > past couple of
> > months have focused on exclusion, not inclusion.
> >
> > More detailed email shall be coming shortly.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > P.S. Regarding funding a minimal level of administration for the
> > constituency, i.e. votebot etc. There is currently upwards of
> > $30,000 in the
> > bank account. We have never expended more than $10,000 a year on
> > non-GNSO/DNSO expenses. Simply put there is sufficient reserves
> > to carry the
> > constituency for several years in the proposed lightweight structure.
> >
> > P.P.S. For those registrars that feel strongly they should not
> have to pay
> > ICANN any more money to participate in a process they already spend
> > thousands of dollars a year already on please contact me. If
> the business
> > constituency can potentially have two constituencies (large and
> small) why
> > can't the registrars have two (those wanting to pay and operate
> as a trade
> > association) and those that just want a voice on specific issues
> > without the
> > threat of having their voice silenced by not paying a self-imposed
> > constituency poll tax.
> >
> >
> >
>