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

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

Elisabeth:

Thank you very much.

J. Scott Evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
To: <council@dnso.org>; <jse@adamspat.com>; <mueller@syr.edu>;
<pdeblanc@usvi.net>
Cc: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
Rights


>
> J. Scott,
>
> The status as of 31 Dec 2001 is explicted in
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011231.ICANN-DNSO-finances.html
>
> Elisabeth
> --
>
> > From owner-council@dnso.org Wed Feb 13 21:14 MET 2002
> > Message-ID: <029c01c1b4ba$3e5bb9c0$1c00a8c0@adamspat.com>
> > From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
> > To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>, "'Milton Mueller'"
<mueller@syr.edu>,
> >         <council@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> > Subject: Re: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
Rights
> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:14:14 -0500
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
> >
> > Milton, Roger or Philip:
> >
> > Can anyone tell me who is current on their DNSO dues to ICANN?  In
addition,
> > of those that are delinquent, how much are the arrearages?
> >
> > J. Scott
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
> > To: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller@syr.edu>; <council@dnso.org>
> > Cc: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:43 AM
> > Subject: RE: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
> > Rights
> >
> >
> > > I would suggest we accept the $ 6,000 and delay any "suspension"
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Milton Mueller
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:37 PM
> > > To: council@dnso.org
> > > Cc: discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > > Subject: [council] NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting
> > > Rights
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 1, 2002, representatives of the Noncommercial
> > > Domain Name Holders Constituency received an email
> > > asking us to show cause why our voting rights in the
> > > Names Council should not be suspended.
> > >
> > > This is the formal response of the NCDNHC Adcom.
> > > Here are your "causes:"
> > >
> > > 1. The NCDNHC is making a good faith effort to collect
> > > funds.
> > >
> > > A membership dues program was initiated in the Fall.
> > > We have collected about $6,000. Additional funds are
> > > still coming in, as are additional memberships.
> > > Collection was delayed somewhat by ICANN's method of
> > > invoicing, which involved emailing 3Mb pdf files
> > > directly to members. We greatly appreciate the
> > > administrative support of ICANN staff, but many of our
> > > members could not receive the ICANN invoice, due to
> > > the size of the file. We are still dealing with the
> > > consequences of that.
> > >
> > > At any rate, when this program was instituted we made
> > > it clear to the Names Council that we would NOT be
> > > able to meet the deadlines imposed by the Names
> > > Council sanctions program, but that over the longer
> > > term we can be expected to develop stable and
> > > substantial sources of financial support. At that time
> > > we received assurances from several members that we
> > > should go ahead with our efforts to raise money.
> > >
> > > 2. Suspension of our voting rights would be
> > > counterproductive.
> > >
> > > Eliminating our voting rights will also eliminate any
> > > future contributions from NCDNHC. The only effect of
> > > such an action will be to INCREASE the financial
> > > support burden of other constituencies.
> > >
> > > NCDNHC member organizations cannot be expected to
> > > continue to provide financial support for the DNSO if
> > > they are barred from voting. The constituency has
> > > shown that it can generate funds, even in our current
> > > relativelydisorganized state. With some forbearance
> > > that amount will steadily grow. We see no reason why
> > > DNSO would want to cut itself off from the funds that
> > > we do generate.
> > >
> > > 3. Suspension of voting rights would undermine the
> > > legitimacy and effectiveness of the DNSO.
> > >
> > > The DNSO was constructed to be a policy making body
> > > that provides representation to the various interest
> > > groups with a stake in domain name issues. It cannot
> > > fulfill that function unless all groups are
> > > represented. The DNSO has already received widespread
> > > criticism for imbalances in its representational
> > > structure. To eliminate the voting rights of the
> > > entire noncommercial sector because of a temporary
> > > monetary shortfall that does not impair the DNSO's or
> > > ICANN's ability to function would be perceived by the
> > > rest of the world as small-minded. It would
> > > undermine the only raison d'etre of the DNSO, which is
> > > a mechanism for generating bottom-up consensus among
> > > affected stakeholders.
> > >
> > > 4. Unrealistic expectations.
> > > While we accept and are trying to meet our financial
> > > obligations to DNSO, the NCDNHC is not composed of
> > > organizations that generate multi-million dollar
> > > revenue streams by means of domain names, nor is it
> > > composed of large-scale telecommunication or content
> > > producer businesses for whom lobbying is a routine cost
> > > of business. It is therefore not realistic to apply
> > > the same financial support standards to us as to the
> > > other constituencies.
> > >
> > > To conclude, there are strong and sufficient
> > > reasons for the sanctions NOT to be applied in this
> > > case. We hope that the Names Council as a whole will
> > > vote that way at its upcoming meetings.
> > >
> > > Milton Mueller
> > > YJ Park
> > > Dany Vandromme
> > > Thierry Amoussougbo
> > >
> > > NCDNHC Adcom
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>