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

[registrars] Repost on behalf of Ross Rader

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]
Sent:	Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:51 AM
To:	owner-registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	BOUNCE registrars@dnso.org:    Non-member submission from ["Ross
Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

From registrars-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org  Wed Dec 15 07:50:33 1999
Received:	from mail.tucows.com (mail.tucows.com [])
	by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19808 for
<Registrars@dnso.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:50:32 +0100 (MET)
Received:	from xfiles2.idirect.com (xfiles2.idirect.com [])
	by mail.tucows.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA17038
	for <Registrars@dnso.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:43:16 -0500
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:43:16 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
X-Sender:	ross@xfiles2.idirect.com
cc:	Registrar Constituency <Registrars@dnso.org>
Subject:	Re: [registrars] DNSO fees and constituency dues
In-Reply-To:	<3855A042.26D8B3B1@interq.ad.jp>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.9912150128430.27902-100000@xfiles2.idirect.com>
	MIME-Version: 1.0
	Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> I would like to propose that the Registrar Constituency set up
> membership fees in order to fund required DNSO costs, and to
> facilitate meetings in the future (i.e. arrange for teleconference
> connectivity, pay for the constituency teleconferences etc.)  How
> would the members feel about annual dues of $500 to $1000?
> I realize there has been some debate regarding registrars paying
> the lions share of the ICANN budget, and being required to support
> the DNSO budget as well, but the DNSO budget is considered
> separate of the ICANN budget.

While these number do not represent undue hardship for our firm, I have to
question the collection of these fees.
On one hand, I have no problem with supporting ICANN, the DNSO and the
various efforts that fall under this umbrella, however I'm not sure that I
am comfortable with the potential that we end up paying the lions share of
this budget.
Specifically, registrars are required to contribute the following as part of
the accreditation process...(from
* US$1,000 non-refundable application fee, to be submitted with application.
* US$5,000 annual accreditation fee (fixed portion).
* Quarterly accreditation fee (variable portion) paid once you begin
registering domain names. This fee represents a portion of ICANN's operating
costs based partly on your share of overall .com, .net, and .org
registrations, so it will vary depending on your volume of names registered
as well as the total volume of all names registered.

This constitutes a *significant* contribution that we are all required to
put forth under the terms of our contract. Further, as I mentioned in LA,
because the ICANN budgetary requirements constitute an increased cost of
goods for the various registries (currently NSI, but the ccTLD registries
going forward), it will undoubtedly mean an increased cost of registrations
for us as a result. So where does the ICANN budget end up coming from in
reality? With the exception of the ASO and PSO contributions (minimal IIRC),
out of the pockets of the registrars.
Some have made the comment that the registrants really bear this increased
expense, but the way the market competition is shaping up, it looks like
registrars will end up eating this cost.
Anyways, my point is this - while I'm willing to continue to "p[l]ay along"
with this request for additional funding, it concerns me that there appears
to be a limitless appetite for funds and no clear cap on the amount that we
will be required to pay. This dynamic, in conjunction with the ICANN budget
pass-through, does not sit well with me.


Ross Wm. Rader
Director, Assigned Names Division
TUCOWS.com Inc.
t. (416) 239-9095 x 335
f. (416) 239-8409

**Note: Please update your
address books - I will only
be reading "ross@tucows.com"
& "ross@opensrs.org" in the
new year. Thanks!**