Re: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights

[Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net>]

>>>>>At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily
dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
priority on this.
Chuck<<<<<

 

I would like to believe Chuck. I really think he means well, however, I would like to see VeriSign make a *tax deductible* donation to the DNSO-GA for funding its operations. 

 

I think it would be a great idea to draw up a *request for a donation,* for VeriSign to fund the DNSO-GA annual expenses.

 

Let VeriSign turn down a reasonable request for funding!

 

/Bruce

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian Appleby

To: ga@dnso.org

Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 14:28

Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Suspension of Voting Rights

Taking food from the mouths of starving children to fund the organization which does not support the interests of the masses is one way of looking at it.  Another is to say that the real cause is the starving children and the fact that they dare to be hungry.

Without the DNSO ICANN has no legitimacy.  Of course the DNSO is needed to support the status quo.  Whether or not the DNSO can affect real change on ICANN and its 'policies' is open.  To think that lower-level sub-groups like a constituency or GA for that matter can affect the DNSO (read NC) is a further abstraction from reality. 

If the DNSO is needed by ICANN then ICANN should support it.  If VeriSign were really smart they would slip the constituencies some money and make this troublesome issue go away, THis debate is  just calling more attention to issues which will help challenge the continuation of the status quo.  Thanks for the help!

BA

At 12:08 PM 4/29/01 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Danny,

Please help me understand how you could be aware of the facts and yet
proceed to use a word like "tyranny?"  That is an emotionally charged term
that seems to be designed to incite anger rather than understanding and
discussion and certainly not a word that describes the action that the NC
took.

It is not at all clear that the NC action is inconsistent with ICANN bylaws
but the Bylaws are vague enough in this regard that clarification seemed
wise.  If it is decided that there is a conflict with the Bylaws, then I
think the Bylaws should be changed.

I would venture to say that we VeriSign was a lot better off before the
ICANN process, but we have tried to be cooperative in that process.  So
whether or not our benefits have exceeded the drawbacks is open to debate,
but that is not the topic of discussion here so I will move on.

It is my personal belief that DNSO independence from ICANN is extremely
important.  I understand that the DNSO is a part of ICANN structure, but
within that structure, DNSO independence lends much more credibility to DNSO
recommendations.  Therefore, I believe that a self-funded DNSO is much
better than one funded by ICANN.  Moreover, that is consistent with the
other Supporting Organizations, both of which are self-funded.

I also believe that DNSO constituencies should be able to demonstrate a
certain amount of viability.  There are lots of ways to do this, one of
which is the ability to generate minimal amounts of finances.  Another is to
develop leadership that is able to organize its members to effectively
respond to issues and to financially support the organization.  The latter
can mean soliciting funds from charitable organizations to support their
cause.

BTW, there are lots of signs that the NCDNHC is developing that leadership
and therefore its viability.

The bottom line with regard to DNSO constituency dues is this:  the most and
maybe the only critical value to being a member of the DNSO and the NC is
the right to vote so the only way to effectively ensure payment of dues set
by the whole NC is to threaten loss of the one right that people value.
Obviously, my conclusion here is based on my assumption that DNSO funding
should not come from ICANN, thereby making the DNSO less dependent on ICANN
for its viability as an organization and therefore presumably more freely
able to set its own course.

The need for a professional secretariat, especially one that commits a
serious amount of time and effort toward the development of effective
consensus-building processes and procedures, is critical in my mind.  Every
NC representative as well as most DNSO members are volunteers who have full
time jobs that more than fill their time without the added responsibilities
they assume in the DNSO.  To expect them to also perform the huge task of
leading the efforts of developing and implementing an effective
consensus-building process is probably unreasonable and destined to failure.
At least in the near future, I believe that will require the efforts of a
full-time person whose primary responsibility is to focus on that objective.

At the same time, I strongly believe that the success of ICANN is heavily
dependent on the success of the DNSO.  Consequently, I place a very high
priority on this.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From:   babybows.com [mailto:webmaster@babybows.com]
Sent:   Sunday, April 29, 2001 7:27 AM
To:     ga@dnso.org
Subject:        [ga] Re:  Suspension of Voting Rights

Chuck,

I am well aware of the specific terms approved.  Please do not presume that
I am speaking out of ignorance.  I am also aware that this NC action is not
consistent with the ICANN ByLaws, and that a request for clarification of
such, posted to Louis Touton by Philip Sheppard on 13 April, and reiterated
by Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales on 21 April, has still gone unanswered.

Your constituency and others have enormously profited from participation in
the ICANN process, and yet rather than seeking solutions which facilitate
greater participation and reduce barriers to entry, you have elected to
pursue a punitive policy which stands at odds with White Paper principles.
As a reminder, the White Paper calls for  "input from the broad and growing
community of Internet users".    How does your solution serve to advance the
needs of our growing community?

Is there a fear to ask the ICANN Board for funding?  There have certainly
been many changes made to the ByLaws in the past, and asking for a change
that would allow for expenses reasonably related to the legitimate
activities of the Corporation (such as DNSO administrative and operational
costs) is certainly preferable to a course of action that would potentially
disenfranchise segments of our membership.

This "reticent action" that you describe seems to place a higher priority on
the "need" to fund a professional Secretariat, than on the "need" to ensure
the "rights" of your fellow participants.

You are blessed with ample funding; others that seek to join in the ICANN
process are not.    Are you advocating that only those with sufficient funds
have a place at ICANN's table?    I am of the view that if we are a part of
ICANN, then ICANN should be underwriting all of our expenses.  If we are not
a part of ICANN, then perhaps we should be invoicing ICANN for policy
guidance to the same degree that ICANN is invoiced for legal advice.



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html