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

RE: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update


Thanks for your comments.  Do you want to float a proposal for tiering and
what % each S.O. should contribute?


Richard D. Forman
President & CEO
Register.com, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Richard Lindsay
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 4:53 AM
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] ICANN Task Force on Funding Update
> Hello all,
> I was very pleasantly surprised to see the increase in traffic
> on this list :-)  Just a couple comments to Richard's original
> post.
> > 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.
> Without some changes, I agree the per domain fee would generate
> the domain "tax" debate.
> > Specific issues that are now on the table include:
> >
> > A) Should all ICANN constituencies contribute to the ICANN budget?
> I think is is uncontroversial that all portions of the Supporting
> Organizations, and in the DNSO, this would include all the
> constituencies, should contribute to the ICANN budget.  So
> as Amadeu correctly points out, this would include the ASO
> and PSO.  I think the sticky point would be how much the At Large
> Membership should pay (probably a token fee only.)
> > B) What % of the overall cost should gTLD registrars absorb?
> I guess the key issue, is to what extent the gTLD registrars
> should subsidize ICANN.  At a minimum, each constituency
> should pay for all the costs incurred during the ICANN meetings
> (so far I believe ICANN has been picking up the bill) and
> other related costs.
> It would be nice if all of ICANN's activities paid for themselves,
> so the costs of running ICANN that have been dedicated to
> the accreditation of gTLD registrars and setting up the system
> would be paid by the registrars.  Unfortunately, this is not
> realistic in my opinion (there are some programs that will
> not be able to pay for themselves) and as fees from accredited
> registrars is one tangible way to generate funding, I think it
> is inevitable that we may end up subsidizing other aspects
> of ICANN operations.   I am not opposed to this.
> > C) Of that %, should individual registrar contributions be flat or
> > tiered?  If tiered, what are the boundaries?
> Here is what generated all the responses on the list :-)
> I feel that the per domain fee is most fair, but then we get
> into the "tax" issue again, so I think some system of tiered
> fees is one way to get out of the "tax" problems.  Then
> again, income tax is graduated right?
> > D) Are there other sources of funding that should be considered?
> I agree that ICANN should not spend significant portions of its
> budget "fund raising" as this would result in creating a larger
> organization just to keep it operational.  I think eventually
> contributions from ccTLD's (they all collect fees too!) is
> another option, and obviously a portion of administrative
> fees from  IP address registries can be passed on to ICANN
> as well.
> > ICANN will be posting the minutes from our first meeting on the ICANN
> > web site shortly.  I will also keep you updated on any new
> > developments.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
> Thanks for keeping us up to date.  We are all very interested
> in what will actually result from the task force.
> Regards,
> Richard - the other one :-)
> --
> _/_/_/interQ Incorporated
> _/_/_/System Division
> _/_/_/Director and General Manager
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay