Re: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Hi Milton,

You said:
We at NCDNHC have just begun to seriously attack the fundraising problem in
our constituency. If commitments to professional staff would risk
significantly raising the contributions we are expected to provide in the
future I would have to balk.



It has become increrasingly clear (glaringly apparent?) that the NC requires
funding and a professional secretariat to support its activities and enable
it to operate effectively.  Funds from constituency fees are not sufficient
to cover basis costs.
We are fortunate that, several months ago, Verisign/NSI offered $100000 to
sponsor the provision of professional Secreatriait services with the money
to be made available (on a dollar for dollar basis) as matching sponsorship
funding is received. Thus, if wecan  find matching sponsorship of $100000,
we can keep constituency fees at the current modest level and hire the
professional support needed to ensure that the DNSO is able to operate
effectively.  If we cannot find matching sponsorship funding, there will be
pressure to increase constituency fees to provide the funding support
requird for the DNSO.

The purpose of my proposal below, is to seek matching funding from th ICANN
Board so that we are able to access the $100000 promised by Verisign (and
keep constituency fees low).

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>;
<council@dnso.org>; <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>;
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique


A very intriguing proposal. I must, alas, express concerns that by accepting
it I am not walking into a cul de sac of some kind. We at NCDNHC have just
begun to seriously attack the fundraising problem in our constituency. If
commitments to professional staff would risk significantly raising the
contributions we are expected to provide in the future I would have to balk.

Unlike all other constituencies we represent groups that do NOT make money
from domain names.

>>> "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com> 03/13/01 20:23 PM >>>
Your point re ICANN processes - below  - is well made.  However, I think we
might take a communique further. In the recent public meeting of the ICANN
Board, some Board members were critical of the DNSO's failutre to provide
significant substantive comment
on the contracts being negotiated with ICANN staff.  It seems to me that we
should address this criticism by pointing out that, in order to get useful
input from the DNSO, the Board has a responsibility to ensure that:
1.  Reasonable time is allowed for the constituencies to consider the issues
and to resolve differences in approaches between the various constituencies;
and
2.  The DNSO and the NC has the resources required to facilitate consensus
building and provide well considered advice to the Board.  The support of
professional and dedicated staff is critical to ensuring that the NC is able
to do its job.

The Board has recently approved expenditure of almost half a million dollars
for a study of the At Large membership.  Given that the 'bottom u' process
of ICANN is substantially dependent on the effective operation of the
DNSO/NC, and the effective operation of the DNSO/NC requires professional
staff support, we should ask that the Board consider providing funding
assistance to the DNSO/NC for staff support.  Specifically, I suggest we
request the Board to match the Verisign offer to provide $100,000 to fund
DNSO/NC secretariat support.  This will enable us to access the $100000
promised by Verisign and thus will guarantee us a total $200,000 in addition
to the constituency fees.  A very effective use of ICANN's funds!

The timing of such a request is clearly important - and I suggest we package
it into our response to the ICANN Board's request for comment on the
contracts being negotiated by NSI staff.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
To: "'Peter de Blanc'" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>; <council@dnso.org>; "DNSO
Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique


Looks great and I 100% support it!

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 12:40 PM
To: council@dnso.org; DNSO Secretariat
Cc: Philip Sheppard
Subject: [council] ICANN consultation periods - Draft comminique


Philip, and NC

Here is my draft. What procedure do we follow to get it approved by the
council and forwarded to ICANN staff and Board?

peter de Blanc
-------------------------

There have been occasions where ICANN Staff publishes out documents while
constituents are in transit on the way to meetings. Examples include  GAC
letter, status quo document, NSI-ICANN contract revision proposal, etc.

This practice does not allow proper time for consultation and comment,
particularly for non-native English speakers. Some colleagues have privately
expressed a feeling thatthis practice may be deliberate, particularly since
it seems to repeat itself at each physical meeting.

While we can understand that the urgencies of the moment do not always allow
for long lead times, and that ICANN is, in general, understaffed, the DNSO
needs to address this issue in a pro-active manner.

This communiqué from the NC to the ICANN staff may help to alleviate the
frustration of the constituency members affected by this practice. We
encourage the ICANN staff to manifest an increased level of sensitivity in
this area in the future.
---------------------------
(EOF)