RE: [council] Fw: your proposal - consultation periods

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Paul and Caroline,

I would like to remark that I have no qualms about asking ICANN
for $100.000, particularly in view of the fact that the comittee
which is evaluating the at large election and membership
procedures have asked for $450.000, and it has been awarded.
As I suggested to the committee at their meeting in Melbourne,
the solution of ICANN at-large membership could easily be resolved by
making every holder of a domain name a member with voting
rights, since these are the natural at large stakeholders in the
ICANN proceedings. It doesnt appear necessary to spend half
a million dollars to resolve this matter.

If keeping the NC detached from ICANN precludes our request, then
perhaps ICANN could underwrite the expenses which they
bill back to the constituencies for meetings, thus avoiding
the constituencies having to meet both meetings and
NC budget expenditures.


----- Mensaje original ----- 
De: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
Para: "'Paul M. Kane'" <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>; <council@dnso.org>
Enviado: Viernes 6 de Abril de 2001 13:17
Asunto: RE: [council] Fw: your proposal - consultation periods


> i agree with Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul M. Kane [mailto:Paul.Kane@reacto.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 3:11 AM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] Fw: your proposal - consultation periods
> 
> 
> Erica Roberts wrote:
> 
> > <snip>
> >
> > The NC resolves that:1. The NC encourages the Board and ICANN staff
> > to  ensure that reasonable time is allowed in future for
> > constituencies to consider issues and to resolve differences;
> >
> > 2. The NC requests the Board to match the Verisign offer to provide
> > $100,000 to fund DNSO/NC secretariat support.
> 
> Morning,
> 
> I support (1.) ... indeed I think it is essential more time be granted
> for constituencies to consider the issues.  Let us support the ICANN
> Board and Staff by urging that there is a published timetable for
> considering work items.  For example, if Verisgn HAD to present their
> draft agreement 2 months before the Melbourne meeting, else it would be
> deferred until the Stockholm meeting) it would have given all of us more
> time to establish the policy areas of consensus and where additional
> work was necessary. Let's suggest a time schedule......
> 
> As for (2).  I feel uncomfortable asking for $100,000 from ICANN to fund
> DNSO/NC secretariat. It runs the risk of the NC distancing itself from
> the community we are here to serve.  The DNSO is just one of three
> Supporting organizations and if the other two supporting organizations
> can raise the funds themselves, then possibly the NC would be better
> asking its community.  Question from sponsors will be asked about the
> role of the DNSO/NC which will make us more accountable and focused to
> our community and keeps us in touch with the real policy issues..... on
> which consensus can be built.
> I would suggest a press release (with quotes from Board members)
> promoting the DNSO/NC and soliciting sponsorship making clear it is a
> no-strings donation.... (but possibly we should have a web site for
> "logos" saying these organizations have generously donated to the DNSO
> for the benefit of the global internet community (with the amount
> given).
> 
> Best
> 
> Paul
>