[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update
I agree with you completely. However, the TFF felt that at this point, they
were interested in finding an alternative to the $1.00 fee. That does not
mean that a proportional fee cannot be implemented further down the road.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 10:35 PM
> To: Amadeu Abril i Abril; Info Avenue; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update
> richard & all...
> i feel amadeu's perspective is quite rational and most reasonable here.
> i also feel we have to develop a practical "proportional" approach to
> richard...as you know, i also spent a "significant" amount of time on the
> hill and my feeling was that the bulk of the members of congress who
> expressed any "concern" over this $1 issue were those who had
> been swayed by
> arguments put forth by the advocates for the NSI perspective.
> the principle concern i saw was more closely related to ICANN'S "unelected
> board" issue which is currently being remedied.
> best wijshes
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Forman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Info Avenue <email@example.com>; Amadeu Abril i Abril
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 9:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update
> While the $1.00 fee seemed to make a lot of sense when it was first
> proposed, it has become a lightning rod for politicians and critics of
> ICANN. There seems to be strong consensus within ICANN that the $1.00 fee
> is no longer desirable. Also, from my time on Capitol Hill,
> congressmen and
> senators will have a field day if the "per domain name" charge comes back
> Richard Forman
> President & CEO
> Register.com, Inc.