RE: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I support waiving the rule for the ccTLDs on tying voting rights to funding for the DNSO, in this extraordinary time of trying to ensure a successful evolution of ICANN.  

Elizabeth makes several excellent arguments but in addition, my support is based on my view that the ccTLDs should continue to contribute to the evolution and reform of the policy processes during this critical period, leading up to the China meeting.  Their participation and contributions are valuable to the shared concerns about a global, interoperable Internet -- which encompasses gTLDs and ccTLDs.  

I do not mean to suggest that the financial situation is not a critical one, and constituencies are struggling to find the means to fund the DNSO's structural support.  I am on record as being strongly disappointed in that the budget committee rejected the NC recommendation that ICANN's budget fund the policy process. I take note that this funding/staff support will be part of an evolved ICANN. 

However, regardless of the financial situation, this is an extraordinary time. Denying the voting contribution of the ccTLD constituency -- or of another constituency, because they have not been able to fulfill their financial support obligations, is not the right approach to determing policy related to evolution and reform.

When we enacted these rules, we did not envision these extraordinary circumstances we are faced with and working within at this time.  Or at least, I didn't.

I would hope that the ccTLD constituency could revisit how they might make a payment to the fees as a separate discussion item.  

I understand that we may be left with a significant unpaid amount, but denying voting privileges does not mean that we will solve the funding problem for unpaid fees.   

I will be only on the call for an hour. My vote, should there be a  motion on this topic, would be to support a waiver for the ccTLDs for policy votes related to evolution and reform;  and, separately, to request that they establish a mechanism to try to make a back payment toward the fees.



-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:24 PM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council



To the Names Council,


While the ICANN Reform process is at its final stage:

  1. The "Blueprint" document produced on 20th June has been commented 
     in Bucharest and on line by all organized ICANN groups (the DNSO 
     NC and GA as well as each Constituency individually, other 
     Supporting Organizations and their components, the Advisories 
     Committees of ICANN including GAC) as well as many individuals;
  2. The ICANN Board resolutions in Bucharest recognize community 
     comments, and, while leaving flexibility for ICANN 2 design, 
     create the ccTLD Supporting Organization in parallel to its sister 
     gTLD Supporting Organization (current DNSO with some adjustments);
  3. The "Blueprint" document determines that the reformed ICANN 2 will 
     be consistent and provide financial and staff support to its 
     Supporting Organizations, exactly in the same way as it is 
     providing financial and staff support today to various ICANN 
     Committees;
  4. The USG is in the process of preparing the next Memorandum of 
     Understanding with ICANN, to be issued before 30 September 2002;

It seems important that the current DNSO works together with the ccTLD 
Managers on the transition to the ICANN 2 structure.


The ccTLD Managers, collectively and individually, have been providing 
the constant support to the ICANN and to the DNSO:

  1. Financing ICANN budget at the level of one million US dollars a 
     year on a voluntary basis (expecting to set up agreements for 
     IANA services to the ccTLD community);
  2. Building up the DNSO itself in Singapore 1999 and its Provisional 
     Names Council in Berlin 1999;
  3. Providing a totally voluntary, and free of charge to all, service 
     of the DNSO Secretariat in 1999. Thanks to that service, not only 
     the Names Council could start to work, but also ICANN started to 
     function populated with 3 Board Directors elected in October 1999.
  4. Since its inception in June 1999 and as an ancillary activity to 
     the DNSO Secretariat (run by a ccTLD Manager), the dnso.org server 
     has been hosting free of charge web pages, mailing lists and 
     corresponding archives for Registrars and ISPCP. The IPC got the 
     DNSO Secretariat help during its initial difficult times. 
     The NCDNH Constituency was helped in their elections.


The lack of financial support from ICANN for the DNSO, for its core 
mission assigned in the MoU with the USG, i.e. development of 
extra-judiciary rules for the gTLD space (such as UDRP, whois, etc) 
led to the Names Council efforts to gather small, but essential to its 
existence, funds.

This task of raising funds for DNSO however was perceived differently 
by different Constituencies:

  1. The gTLD Registries and Registrars finance already the large part 
     of ICANN - which is perfectly logical with ICANN mission for gTLD 
     space and DNSO where gTLD policies are being developed - and 
     gather fees from end-users. The gTLD Registries and Registrars get 
     benefits from contracts with ICANN and have means to raise fees.
  2. The ccTLD Managers finance already the large part of ICANN - while 
     they are NOT part of the main and the most costly ICANN mission 
     related to the gTLD space, but they do so as part of their 
     responsibility for a stable Internet and IANA function. The ccTLD 
     Managers (with 2 recent exceptions) do not have contracts with 
     ICANN for IANA function. It is important to note that without 
     dully documented contractual relationships there are very few 
     if any legal possibilities for ccTLD to send money to a foreign 
     private company. In addition to one million USD transferred to 
     a foreign private company ICANN by the ccTLD Managers, 
     the ccTLD Constituency paid in 2001 near $10,000 to the DNSO Names 
     Council ($6916 as of April 2002, completed recently with $3000).
  3. The Business, IPC, ISPCP or NCDNH do not finance ICANN directly, 
     and while raising small funds for the DNSO which was not always 
     easy for them, they have been supporting the DNSO Secretariat, 
     the essential responsibility to the community;
  4. As mention above, the DNSO Secretariat has been run on a voluntary 
     basis by one ccTLD in 1999, and its bill of $59,400 for year 2000 
     services remains unpaid.


The ccTLD Managers do not wish to distract the Names Council and the 
DNSO from their main task today, which is ICANN Reform and transition to 
the ICANN 2.

The ccTLD Managers request the Names Council to take into account the 
whole record of Constituency contributions to the DNSO, collectively and 
individually, and waive the rule related to voting rights related to the 
DNSO fees.

We believe that it is the only fair approach permitting everybody to 
focus on ICANN's important reform issues today.


Signed for ccTLD Managers

Elisabeth Porteneuve