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

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

Elizabeth and fellow council members...

I would hope that you would allow me a question & some observations here
....

1.Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that the CCTLD's voted for
the "sanction program"  and its related "methodology" for dealing with
delinquencies.. did they not ?

2. To-date, I have not seen any attempt by your constituency to work within
this specific DNSO budget & financial support  "process"  your constituency
endorsed and voted for (and a process in which you participated in creating,
as you have been a working member of the budget committee since it's
inception) .......

on  the contrary, I have seen primarily a posture of "distancing" the
CCTLD's from the DNSO both "optically"  as well as "financially",   and this
"policy" has been echoed on numerous occasion publicly by spokesmen for the
constituency and reinforced on numerous occasions by comments made by many
country code managers.

3. I have seen any effort by the constituency to acknowledge the
"obligations" your representatives voted in the names council to "assume" or
any tangible attempt to honor them either

Finally ... what to me is "most frustrating"  is the fact that the other
constituencies,  (including, in fact, the NCDNH),  in reliance of
representations of "assumption"  financial responsibility  and affirmations
of the sanction program by the CCTLD constituency, went forward and
solicited funds from their members and "endeavored" to meet the obligations
assumed at the time the various budgets were approved by the council (again
votes in which, I believe,  members of your constituency participated &
ratified)

sincerely yours,

ken stubbs



----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 17:24 PM
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
>