RE: [registrars] Montreal meeting

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Hello All:

I just wanted to offer some comments on this discussion, as I think Rob and
Ross raise some good points that can be incorporated into a compromise.

Currently the Registrar Constituency has over 25 thousand dollars in its
account. This is in part because of the significant financial contributions
that registries and other third party service providers have been able to
provide the constituency over the years. According to my back of the napkin
accounting these third party contributions approach nearly 10,000. This
additional money has directly resulted in keeping registrar constituency
fees lower. Although there have been several registrars that have argued for
fees in excess of thousands of dollars, I believe that such a fee increase
would be detrimental to smaller and mid-size registrars since these people
already pay several thousands of dollars a year in ICANN fees.

Although Ross, Elana and Brian are primarily policy people, many other
registrars that send representatives to these meetings do so having these
people wear multiple hats (marketing, sales, etc). Therefore these
presentations are of potential value to them, although policy types might
find it a little boring. I agree with Ross that an attempt should be made to
segment these presentation for policy types that find no marketing value in
them.

I think a proposed compromise could be as follow. Having the third party
marketing presentations toward the end of the session with no fees accessed
for these presentations. Because several policy types will be leaving the
meeting to network and lobby, the remaining attendance will be smaller and
potentially less attractive to any potential paying sponsors. I think this
strikes a reasonable balance to the concerns and issues raised by Rob and
Ross.

Best regards,

Mike

P.S. Ross when TUCOWS was one of the sponsors of last years Amsterdam
meeting, I did not find their presentation mind-numbing at all :-)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:37 AM
> To: Rob Hall
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Montreal meeting
>
>
> On 6/6/2003 10:21 AM Rob Hall noted that:
>
> > Ross,
> >
> > With all due respect, the entire GNSO policy is directed at dealing with
> > gTLD's (not ccTLD's).
>
> Lets cut to the chase...
>
> I'm not talking about ccTLDs or even gTLDs specifically. I'm talking
> about the mind-numbing waste of time registry sales pitches that have
> *nothing* to do with GNSO policy matters.
>
> As far as scheduling goes, pitches shouldn't be on the agenda, and if
> they are they should be segregated as heavily as possible to allow our
> constituency to focus our attention in a meaningful way.
>
>
>                         -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>
>
>
>