<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses of DNSO
Hi Erica:
For those who doesn't know our charter, here it is the piece of NCDNHC charter
that I made reference:
You can find it also in: http://www.ncdnhc.org/docs/charter/drafts/20000921.html
---------------
II. Membership Criteria
The NCDNHC proposes that the following organizations shall be eligible for membership in the NCDNHC:
a) organizations holding at least one domain name,
b) and which are incorporated as a non-commercial entity (in countries that have such a provision in their commercial code), or if unincorporated or operating in a country
without provisions for non-commercial incorporation, operate on a not-for-profit basis primarily for non-commercial purposes, and
c) which are engaged in activities that are primarily non-commercial, including, e.g. political, educational, religious, charitable, scientific and artistic.
The membership of the NCDNHC specifically excludes commercial entities and associations of or for the benefit of commercial entities (even if they are non-commercial in
form), and also excludes organizations which use the Internet primarily forcommercial activity, even if their other activities are non-commercial.
----------------
Because the NCDNHC represents the Non-Commercial sector, and there can be some
conflict of interest between any Non-Profit organization engaging in commercial
activities or for the sake of commercial activities, is the reason why they
aren't elegible to be a member of the NCDNHC.
Best Regards
Vany
El dom, 22 abr 2001, Erica Roberts escribió:
> I am becoming confuse4d about the membership of the Non-cvommercial
> constituency. It was my understanding that membership was open to any
> not-for-profit organisation. But Vanny said:
> The NCDNHC excludes trades associations and excludes any
> non-profit entity that engages in promote commercial activities (commerce
> chambers, for example).
> I gather that this rule means that a NFP which either engages in (or
> promotes)commercial activities in ineligible to join, but I am not clear
> what is (and is not) defined as a 'commercial activity'. If this means that
> NFPs that raise funds thru the sale of goods or services are excluded, then
> it would seem that most chartitable organisations which are not fully
> government funded - that is, most charitable organisations are excluded.
> If this is indeed the case, then I would be a bit worried that membership of
> the consitutency is too narrow and needs to be broadened.
> erica
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
> To: <nc-budget@dnso.org>
> Cc: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 4:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses
> of DNSO
>
>
> Hi Ken:
>
> I think you are confusing things. I am not asking to the NC to exempt the
> NCDNHC to pay its debts. What I am proposing is to engage in search
> alternative ways for the future, begining next year, for lower costs of
> operations of DNSO and search alternatives to achieve such purpose in order
> that
> the contribution by every constituency be as low as possible.
>
> By the way: The NCDNHC excludes trades associations and excludes any
> non-profit entity that engages in promote commercial activities (commerce
> chambers, for example).
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
>
> El vie, 20 abr 2001, Digitel - Ken Stubbs escribió:
> > i am sorry vany ....but i can not support this motion or your position on
> > this issue ..
> >
> > the ncdnh constituancy has amongst it many large institutions who could
> > qualify for membership. it is necessary for your group to "reach out" to
> > these parties to support the constituancy just as people reach out for
> > support for travel subsidies to attend ICANN meetings in the past.
> >
> > over the past 2 years i have seen minimal efforts on the part of the NCDNH
> > to actively solicit members for contributions..
> >
> > the amount of $ requested in the past has been minimal and it would seem
> to
> > me that parties who have expressed a strong interest for advocacy for
> > non-commercial interests have got to provide the funds to support this
> > advocacy..
> >
> > i feel very strongly about this principle. the general assembly is being
> > subsidized and that seems most fair to me . i do not see the necessity nor
> > do i feel any desire to subsidize yours or any other constituancy.
> >
> > 1. non commercial interests include..
> >
> > trade associations
> > educational institutions
> > advocacy groups
> > charitable institutions etc....
> >
> > i am certain that many or these organizations would be happy to support
> the
> > constituancy if an organized campaign was initiated.
> >
> > thats my position and these are my feelings
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <vany@sdnp.org.pa>
> > To: <nc-budget@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <council@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 12:28 PM
> > Subject: [council] Motion: Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses of
> > DNSO
> >
> >
> > > Dear fellows:
> > >
> > > There has been a motion to take away voting rights for those
> > constituencies
> > > that doesn't contribute with DNSO expenses. It is unaceptable from any
> > point
> > > of view to take such action, since it seems like every year DNSO
> expenses
> > > increases and it is not true that every year every constituency will be
> > able to
> > > collect its part.
> > >
> > > Also it is not acceptable that participants of the DNSO has to pay if
> they
> > want
> > > to assure representation and voting rights. This is not the spirit of
> > ICANN
> > > By-Laws. And, in my understanding, the ICANN By-Laws are the ones that
> > grants
> > > voting rights to the NC representatives, not the abilitiy to share any
> > expenses
> > > that DNSO incurr.
> > >
> > > Under this light, I have the following motion:
> > >
> > > "The Names Council will engange to find alternative solutions of
> covering
> > > expenses, in order to assure an open participation of all stakeholders
> in
> > the
> > > ICANN policy making".
> > >
> > > Alternative Solutions to lower the expenses of DNSO
> > >
> > > 1. Instead of sharing costs amongst the constituency, simply works in
> a
> > > donation basis.
> > >
> > > 2. Draft projects to different donations entities. The following is
> the
> > URL of
> > > the Infodev and the DNSO fits very well in the Consensus Building
> > Component
> > > http://www.infodev.org/projects/apply.htm
> > >
> > > 3. Search sponsors for services usually hired by DNSO
> > >
> > > 4. There are services that not need to be hired foreign team (for
> > example, the
> > > webcasting is done by the Berkman Center which has high cost for
> perfoming
> > this
> > > service simply because they have to travel from one country to another).
> > So,
> > > I think it would be interesting to do an experiment of asking for
> > quotations
> > > for the same service to a local team (and searching alternative
> > technologies
> > > less expensive)
> > >
> > > 5. Sharing responsabilities amongst DNSO participants without having to
> > > produce money for pay.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Vany
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > IT Specialist
> > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > > Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
> > > Fax: (507) 230-3455
> > > e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3455
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
--
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|