[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update

Richard Forman wrote:
> Fellow Registrars,
> As some of you may know, ICANN has created a task force on funding to
> review ICANN's sources of revenue and to recommend to the Board how to
> fund ICANN going forward.

Thanks for the update, Rich. See some brief comments beow.

> On a personal note, I believe that a variable cost allocation method
> (e.g., $1 fee per domain name) will continue to promote the taxation
> debate.  This is not just a US issue.  The European Union will not stand
> for anything that smells like a tax. Therefore, I am strongly in favor
> of finding a solution to the ICANN funding debate.
Also in a personal basis, I  think that the $1 per domain was the best
"inerim" solution avaliable. To be sure, the European Union has never
contested it, nor the European registrars to my knowledge. But it has
been killed by the political moves we all know, and perhaps this
debate is out of date. Just be aware that most of us are willing to
keep that sytem as long as we can't find anything better. 

> Specific issues that are now on the table include:
> A) Should all ICANN constituencies contribute to the ICANN budget?

Not only all consituencies, but indeed all three SOs. In fact ASO is
very likely to start contirbuitons relatively soon (both RIPE NCC and
APNIC have long time ago decided those contributions, even the amount.
Only ARIN is unclear about it). For PSO things might be different as
they are not basd on eqully formal insitutions (specially IETF) and,
taking into account their special nature they could contribute less
than both ASO and DNSO.

The principle is equitable participation, not necessarily eqaul paritcipation.

> B) What % of the overall cost should gTLD registrars absorb?

No idea yet(for one thing, I feel that the budget is a little bit too
high......). Again, the question is more about been equitble than
equal. My sense (with no further developemnts troprovide) is that
perhaps the "supply side" /the curent infraestructure in offering
domain name rregistration services, that is the gTLD rregitry(ies);
ccTLD registries and the gTLD registrars) should provide at leasdt
half of the DNSOfunding, while the "demand side" (the other
consituencies, should privide the rest.

I said at leaet. Up to two thirds would also be ligical, fiven the
structure of the DNS and the possibility to spread the costs
downstream /yes I know: you smell taxes here... ;-))

> C) Of that %, should individual registrar contributions be flat or
> tiered?  If tiered, what are the boundaries?

The simnpler the better. Either we have flat contirbutions or based on
registrations. Other systems would be perahps too complicated, and
certainly not fairer.

> D) Are there other sources of funding that should be considered?
Donations and other less-than-transparent mechansims should not be
used if possible. Contributions by particpants. Those with an stake
and wanting a voice need to fund the structure. I would not favour
other systems.

We llok forward to your preliminary proposals and thank you for
keeping us informed.

Best regards,