VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
Date: Monday June 24 2002, @06:49AM
Topic: Verisign/NSI

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....

This discussion has been archived.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
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re: VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Monday June 24 2002, @07:50AM (#7416)
User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
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 ]
Re: VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday June 24 2002, @09:26AM (#7422)
User #2810 Info
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 ]
Re: VeriSign Registrars Nix ICANN Budget
by Jon_Weinberg on Thursday June 27 2002, @06:33AM (#7522)
User #16 Info | www.threecats.net
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.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/24/104903