RE: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I am speaking only for myself as one of the BC reps to the NC. I support the
efforts which you are making, and will bring this issue to the attention of
the BC and along with the other BC reps, seek to provide a supportive
statement to your good intentions. 

You will recall that is the position I took on the NC call. Obviously all
constituencies must find a way to be self-sustaining. I personally consider
it reasonable to find a way to enable the non commercial constituency [and
potentially any constituency] to work out effective solutions where funding
by the constituency of its own services, and a contribution to the NC is
concerned.

Of course, we must be cognizant of budget realities. I see nothing
antithetical in taking as progressive [and lenient] an approach as possible
to problems as they exist.  You will recall that I maintained that I have
faith in each constituency's intentions to fund their part of the costs. 

I cannot make a commitment to any outcome, but I can indicate recognition
and work with you, and other NC reps toward a balanced approach to
addressing the realities which your constituency faces.

Of course, as payments begin to happen, this will be a very good sign of
"good faith". 

Best regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:18 AM
To: Peter de Blanc; 'Milton Mueller'; council@dnso.org
Cc: amsiat@bow.intnet.bj; vandrome@renater.fr; mueller@syracuse.edu;
ceo@vany.org
Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues


Peter,

> For the record, when the NC vote on sanctions came up,  NCDNHC reps
> voted yes.
> 
Which vote you are mentioning?

Votes within the Budget Committee? or

Votes regarding Budget Committee's report?
which I and Milton abstained during August 16's teleconference.

> The fact is that sanctions don't really kick in for 180 days or 6
> months, from the time of the first notice- which, to my knowledge has
> not been sent out.
> 
> Furthermore, the suggestion that the existence of the "sanction
> resolution", may thwart collection efforts, could well apply to ANY
> constituency.
> 
> Especially the ccTLD constituency.

That's why it may be a natural choice for us to go for ccSO and NCSO.

YJ

> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:26 PM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Cc: amsiat@bow.intnet.bj; yjpark@myepark.com; vandrome@renater.fr;
> mueller@syracuse.edu; ceo@vany.org
> Subject: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues
> 
> 
> 
> August 21, 2001
> 
> Fellow Name Councillors:
> 
> I want to update you on the status of the NCDNHC's efforts
> to pay its dues, and to clarify some of the related issues.
> 
> The NCDNHC is a large and very diverse collection of organizations that
> have never worked together prior to the creation of ICANN. It took us
> until June 2001 
> (the Stockholm meeting) to finally pass a resolution 
> authorizing the mandatory collection of membership dues 
> from the member organizations. A previous proposal to 
> charge membership dues (submitted by myself) was defeated 
> in Melbourne. The persistence of certain members in 
> getting this through ought to be noted.
> 
> According to our rules, the results of the face to face 
> meeting must be ratified by an online vote. This was
> supposed to happen by July 2001. However, the Internet 
> Society, which until then hosted our membership list, 
> suffered technical problems which, without warning, 
> completely disabled our communication for more than a 
> month.
> 
> As of August 20 we have established a new email list
> and have carefully made the transition so that no members
> will be left out of any important decisions. 
> 
> We are now ready to authorize ICANN to invoice our 
> members for contributions to the DNSO, and if the
> Stockholm resolution is ratified by online vote, as
> I expect it will be soon, any organizations not paying
> those dues will cease to be voting members of NCDNHC
> as of March 2002. I expect that we will be able to
> raise the required amounts going forward, but of course
> I do not know for sure.
> 
> The point I want to emphasize is that our "delinquency"
> thus far has NOT been a willful refusal to pay but a
> byproduct of the difficult process of developing the organizational
> capacity to pay.
> 
> It follows that threats to impose interest charges,
> cut off votes, etc., will have absolutely no impact on
> our ability or willingness to pay. All we need is the
> time to implement our plan.
> 
> Indeed, the sanctions proposed by the Budget Committee 
> would be counterproductive. If they are implemented
> just as our dues-collection process gets underway,
> the value proposition that might encourage existing 
> NCDNHC members to pay their dues is fatally undermined.
> How can we ask budget-strapped non-profits to pay dues
> to an organization that refuses to allow them to vote in
> the DNSO? How will the NCDNHC ever catch up with the
> interest charges that will almost certainly pile up as
> we continue to fall behind arbitrary deadlines? The impact
> of a rigid imposition of sanctions will simply be to 
> destroy the NCDNHC.
> 
> Perhaps this is what some people want. I believe that 
> the majority of the NC and DNSO, however, do not want
> that. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the 
> missing money is critical to the operation of the DNSO;
> at any rate, destruction of a constituency via rigid application of
> sanctions would ensure that that money will always be missing.
> 
> Fellow Council members, shall I go forward with the
> NCDNHC's plan to implement membership dues? Can I tell
> my members in good faith that the DNSO values and needs
> their participation and will bear with them while the dues-collection
> processes are put into place and given 
> time to work? 
> 
> Please give me your guidance.
> 
> Milton Mueller
> 
>