Re: [registrars] Response to ICANN-DoC-NSI Agreements

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 13:49 18-10-1999 -0500, Lauren Gaviser wrote:

>Bob,
>thanks for your reply.  Given that you approve of the text, does that mean I
>can add you, PSI-Japan and PSI-USA as signatories to the letter?
>Thanks,
>Lauren

Dear Lauren:

Sorry to vacillate, but on re-reading your proposed text, I find a couple 
of things which differ from our viewpoint.

Since I first heard of the IAHC, I was in favor of the concept of "cash on 
the barrel head".  To the extent that your section "Prepayment of Fees" 
would excuse us from such a requirement, we would not approve.  We must not 
deviate from our insistence upon prepayment.

We at PSI-Japan and PSI-USA would not compromise on the policy of 
prepayment of fees and would insist that NSI Registrar operate on the same 
basis.  Otherwise there will be all heck to pay with responsible IP interests.

On the question of "Registrar Accreditation Fees", I wonder whether there 
is something between the lines which is ambiguous? "Ongoing Accreditation 
Fees" certainly cannot refer to usage fees, can it?

Early on, we have CORE members who insisted on a "flat fee" applicable to 
all members regardless of size and registration volume.  They were a noisy 
bunch, made it sound as though everyone agreed.  When put to the test, only 
12% voted for flat fees and the balance put their reliance upon a fixed fee 
per registration.

If there is an element in this section which suggests that all registrars 
would pay the same sum per year regardless of the number of registrations, 
we would be adamantly oppose it.

Please clarify your position on this point.

Regards, BobC







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A hog seldom dies a natural death."
Ulric B. Bray
(Anyone for bacon?)