Re: [registrars] Formulation of Agenda for LA meeting

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Gentlemen,

How about a little Registrar business.  I was going to post
this to the list, but then reconsidered, and wanted to bounce
this off you gentlemen first.  Any comments? (it is late, I
may be illogical...)

About the funding issue.  I agree that we will quite likely  be
paying the large bulk of ICANN funding, and we should be able
to set some of that aside to cover our Constituency costs.

I had an idea that may make sense just for now.  Currently
many testbed registrars are voluntarily contributing to ICANN
$1.00 per domain per year, usually $2.00 per new registration.
Since this is now voluntary, what if we designate that this
money be used to offset DNSO costs, in particular our portion
of the webcasting costs.  interQ is planning on writing out
a check (figuratively) to ICANN, why not say "for DNSO cost
allocation?"

I don't know, what do you think?  Do you want to present this
to the membership?

Richard


"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> The LA meeting is fast approaching. I need to start to formalize an agenda
> for discussion. One of the most important topics will be funding of the
> constituency. It has been brought to my attention that the Names Counsel on
> October 5th 1999 approved a temp budget that requires each constituency
> organization (not member) to pay $5,000 within 30 days from the LA meeting.
> (see below).
>
> Let me be the first to say that I am not exactly thrilled about paying
> additional money to fund the names counsel's activities. We as registrars
> are the only ones currently paying any fees to ICANN (application fee and
> annual renewal) plus it appears that we will be carrying the brunt of the
> ICANN funding when any fee structures are accessed. However, getting that
> burdened off my chest, I think that it is necessary for us to contribute
> something. We cannot function on a non-existent budget. Although Amadeu, Ken
> and Richard have offered their time for free, there are certain fixed costs
> such as webcast, telephone conferences, conference rooms, etc. that must be
> paid. Also I think it is important that as registrars we stay active in the
> ICANN process because otherwise no one is pushing for new gTLDs outside of
> our constituency.
>
> I have no immediate solutions for this rather pressing problem, I leave it
> up to the members in the constituency to formulate a response.
>
> Mike