| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
posted by tbyfield on Monday June 24 2002, @06:49AM
Speaking "on behalf of the VeriSign Registrars" -- including VeriSign Registrar (singular, formerly Network Solutions Registrar), NameSecure, SRSPlus, and NameEngine -- Network Solutions director Bruce Beckwith has announced "that ICANN's proposed budget [for FY 1 July '02 - 30 June '03] remain at the same levels as the current budget."
|
|
 |
|
Beckwith's email to the registrars constituency mailing list denies that they're "rejecting the current budget proposal outright," but the rationale could hardly be more damning:
As most organizations, we at VeriSign develop budgets that are based on fairly specific assumptions about functions, structure, organization, activities, and their consequent effect on expenses. Most organizations do the same. It would not be a sound business strategy for any organization, profit or non-profit, to enter into major new spending commitments at the very time that they are in the midst of a strategic review.... [W]e are simply stating that at this point in time, given the major review that is underway, it is not fiscally prudent for a budget to enter into significant new, long term, financial commitments that will increase the current budget by 25% or more....
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 9 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
What does this mean? It's rather ambiguous. Does it mean that Verisign refuses to pay more as demanded by ICANN?
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
Tut tut. Perhaps if ICANN had worked harder at their assigned task of fostering competition (and less on mission creep unassigned tasks) they wouldn't now find themselves in this pickle. If ICANN gives Veri$ign their WL$ perhaps they'll become more reasonable. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
Bret Fausett's blog relays Stuart Lynn's point that, under the NSI concurrent agreement, NSI is obligated to approve the variable registrar fee so long as NSI registrar's share remains below $2 million. This indicates that Verisign can't simply use its own market share to block the fee; on the contrary, with Verisign's votes in favor, the fee goes through unless it's opposed by other registrars with (roughly) a majority of all non-Verisign registrations.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
