[council] Re: NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting Rights

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

Milton, 

The other odd aspect of fees is its interrelationship with ICANN's mission
as a consensus-based organization. Here's the problem. Assume a close vote
on a new consensus policy on something like transfers, which will bind the
registrars. Assume that the NCDNHC votes are not counted because they didn't
pay their fees, but the 3 constituency votes would have gone against
whatever it is that passed. Now you've generated a "consensus" policy from
the DNSO that really isn't a consensus at all. It could likely be challenged
on that ground by the party you were seeking to bind. Your constituency's
status as a stakeholder doesn't change because you can or can't pay; you're
still affected by the policies and outcomes.

This idea is supported by the ICANN Bylaws. Article VI-B determines what
constitutes consensus within the DNSO and the NC, and who can be a member of
the NC. Nothing in that article requires that you be a paying member of the
NC in order to register a vote. If the other NC members want to implement a
pay-to-play system, then I suspect it will require the ICANN Board to
approve changes to Article VI-B of the Bylaws.

        Bret