RE: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Peter:

None of the foundations you mentioned accepts applications.  They make the
first step.  Not the posible beneficiary.

Best Regards
Vany

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Yes, paul. At the time the NCDNHC also stated, that as matter of
> principle, they should pay no more than 50% of any dues assessed other
> constituencies.
>
> I suggested that the percentage stay at 100%, and that the NCDNHC simply
> ask the other constituencies for a grant. That way, each of the other
> constituencies would be subsiding NCDNDC by choice instead of by "fiat".
>
> Changing the percentage would cause the dues to be re-calculated, and
> the invoices had already gone out.
>
> At the time, the leadership of the NCDNDC rejected that concept, because
> it might lead to "capture", or an implied obligation on the part of
> NCDNDC.
>
> Finally, I suggested the usual sources, Markle, Ford, Center for
> Democracy foundations, etc.
>
> I do not know if NCDNDC applied to them.
>
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul M. Kane
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:06 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: 'Milton Mueller'; council@dnso.org; amsiat@bow.intnet.bj;
> yjpark@myepark.com; vandrome@renater.fr; mueller@syracuse.edu;
> ceo@vany.org
> Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC and DNSO dues
>
>
> Morning Peter
>
> As a recent overview you are correct ... but it should also be
> remembered when Danny Vandrome was on the NC (and pre Budget Committee
> days) looking into the issue of dues Danny requested the NCDNHC be
> allowed a dispensation due to the composition of the constituency. At
> the time he suggested a 50% discount, but due to timing other
> Constituencies had already committed to the proposed budget and failure
> for any Constituency to pay their proportion would have represented a
> short fall in overall income. As it happened a number of  constituencies
> were delinquent so there was a significant shortfall in the annual
> revenue.
>
> I understand ICANN has now, (at the request of the NCDNHC NC reps)
> introduced a credit card payment system to assist the NCDNHC collect
> it's dues.
>
> Best
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > For the record, when the NC vote on sanctions came up,  NCDNHC reps
> > voted yes.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
>

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa