Re: [council] Request for Agenda Item, Final Notice to NCDNHC

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Roger:

Thank you.  In fact, although NCDNHC has not yet sent its final 
notification to the DNSO Secretariat, Adcom has asked me to serve on the 
Budget Committee.  I look forward to working with you and the rest of 
the Committee on this issue.

Harold Feld

Cochetti, Roger wrote:

>Harold-
>
>I think this is appropriately addressed by the Names Council Budget
>Committee, on which the NCDNHC has had one or two representatives at various
>times, before it comes before the full Council.  I'm trying to schedule a
>meeting of the NC BC for sometime next week and you are welcome to
>participate as a full member if you would like to join the Committee.  
>
>Roger Cochetti
>Chair
>Names Council Budget Committee 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harold J. Feld [mailto:hfeld@mediaaccess.org]
>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:30 PM
>To: Names Council (E-mail)
>Subject: [council] Request for Agenda Item, Final Notice to NCDNHC 
>
>
>Fellow members of the Names Council.
>
>I hope I am not accidentally violating procedure, but I must raise an 
>issue of pressing importance to the NCDNHC. I would like to ask us to
>address this 
>matter on tomorrows conference call meeting.  If we cannot address it
>tomorrow, I would like to request that we address it at the April 4 meeting,
>although I will be unable to participate in the April 4 conference because
>it is a religious holiday.
>
>Unless the NC acts before May 11, the NCDNHC will lose its voting rights on
>the NC.
>For the reasons stated below, I request that the NC take official action to
>prevent this from happening. Because this raises a difficult issue of first
>impression before the NC, I request that the NC vote to "stop the clock" on
>the DNSO process for sanctioning consticuencies that have not paid their
>dues in full until the face-to-face NC meeting in Bucharest.
>
>As you know, the NCDNHC has had difficulty raising money to pay its DNSO
>dues.
>Our constituency received a letter from the DNSO Secretariat on February 1,
>2002, 
>asking that we show cause why the NC should not suspend the voting rights of
>the NCDNHC.  
>
>On February 7, 2002, the NCDNHC Adcom replied to the show cause letter. 
> the reply argued: (1) The NCDNHC has made its best efforts to pay the 
>dues assessed; (2) suspension of voting rights would hinder NCDNHC 
>efforts to collect overdue dues from members and would thus be 
>counterproductive; (3) the presence of NCDNHC as voting members enhances 
>the DNSO consensus development process, whereas suspending NCDNHC as 
>voting members would diminish the effectiveness of the consensus 
>process; and, (4) the NC should recognize the difficulty confronting 
>NCDNHC in collecting dues and grant relief as a matter of fairness. 
> Several members of the NC posted positive responses to the NCDNHC reply 
>to the show cause.  
>
>The NCDNHC AdCom mistakenly believed that reply to the show cause 
>"stopped the clock" under the DNSO bylaws until the NC acted on the 
>reply, deeming it either sufficient or insufficient.  We were therefore 
>both surprised and dismayed to receive a "Final Notice" informing us 
>that (a) our voting rights will be suspended on May 13, 2002, unless we 
>pay the current balance, and (b) total late fees of nearly $1000 have 
>been levied against the NCDNHC in accordance with the approved process. 
>
>It appears that although the rules provide an opportunity for an overdue 
>constituency to show cause why it should not suffer sanctions, 
>the process provides no mechanism for determining whether to 
>grant relief in response to the show cause order.  As a result, despite 
>our reply to the show cause and our continued best efforts to collect 
>dues, we find ourselves in danger of losing our voting rights in the NC 
>at a critical moment in the development of ICANN as an institution.
>
>Had the Adcom realized this, we would have pressed for a formal 
>determination on our reply at Accra or, at the least, asked that the 
>procedures under which the reply to the show cause will be evaluated be 
>clarified and that the NC "stop the clock" on sanctions against the 
>NCDNHC until final action is taken on the reply to the show cause.
>
>In light of the present compressed schedule under which we must reply to 
>the Board on restructuring.  I do not propose that the NC should address 
>either the NCDNHC show cause response or the question of what procedures 
>to employ generally at this time.  Rather, I ask that the NC take action 
>to "stop the clock" on the sanction process until the next face-to-face 
>meeting in Bucharest.  We can continue to discuss the merits of the 
>NCDNHC show cause reply, and what procedures to employ generally, 
>on-line until the meeting.
>
>I set forth the following reasons for granting this request.
>
>1) The NCDNHC has acted and continues to act in good faith.  Owing to 
>the confusion resulting from our election almost on the heels of  the 
>show cause letter, the lack of any precedent or instruction from the 
>Chair or the NC to guide NCDNHC, and the lack of clarity on the 
>procedure as adopted, the NCDNHC genuinely thought its response 
>sufficient and that no further action was needed on our part to require 
>action on our response tot he show cause letter.  In addition, NCDNHC 
>has continued to make best efforts to pay the remaining amount required 
>by the DNSO.  Since the February 1 letter, NCDNHC has forwarded an 
>additional $800 in dues.  NCDNHC continues to remind its members of 
>their responsibilities and to collect dues from members that have not yet
>paid.
>
>2) The NCDNHC cannot participate effectively in the structure debate if 
>its voting rights will be suspended in the middle of the debate.  This 
>matter absorbs a great deal of attention and concern within the NCDNHC. 
> Allowing us to set it aside until Bucharest will allow us to focus on 
>the critical issue at hand without the distraction and drain on our 
>resources.  Furthermore, several of our members who have paid their dues 
>question why they should participate if, after doing all they can do, 
>their voice still does not count in the final decision making process.
>
>3) The consensus process will suffer if NCDNHC's voting rights are 
>suspended.  Now, more than ever, it is important that all voices in the 
>ICANN consensus process participate on equal terms.  Even more 
>importantly, the public must the process as including all relevant 
>communities.  If NCDNHC is suspended during the process, it may create 
>an appearance that non-commercial voices are disfavored both within the 
>non-commercial community (many of whom will therefore chose not to 
>participate) and within the public at large even though the suspension 
>has nothing to do with restructuring.
>
>I am loathe to add this item at the last minute to tomorrow's conference 
>call, but I would request that we resolve this request as quickly as 
>possible. If we cannot address it tomorrow, than can it go on the agenda for
>April 4?
>My one concern there is that I cannot participate in the April 4 meeting
>because it is a religious holiday.
>
>Harold Feld
>NCDNHC
>
>
>
>
>
>