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

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Milton, et. al.

While I can sympathize with the plight of the NCDNHC, I wonder what sort of
precedent we would be setting.  Without a carrot (voting rights), it is
often difficult to get the horse to perform the expected task.  The IPC has
routinely paid its dues on time in great part because we do not want to lose
our voting rights on the NC.  Trust me, it is difficult for the IPC to
collect its dues in order to meet its NC obligations and, quite honestly, I
fear that waiving or forgiving any penalty for failure to pay NC dues will
only give our delinquent members an argument that we do not need to meet our
NC obligations b/c there is no penalty for failing to pay or only partially
paying.

In summary, I fear that an abolishment of the incentive to pay would have a
disastrous effect on NC finances.  It is my understanding that NC reserves a
great deal of capital merely because of the slow payment/non-payment issue.
I do not recommend that we continue to waive this issue.  If, and I am not
saying it is necessary, a by-law revision is necessary then let's get to it.
We need to ensure the stability of the NC by having paying members and
paying members will receive the benefit of that membership (i.e., the
ability to vote).

J. Scott Evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
Cc: <bwg-n-friends@jetty.net>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [council] Re: NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
Rights


> 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
>
>