Re: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

ICANN has funding problems.  ICANN is a non-profit. It is understood by many that
ICANN must receive 51% of its funding through qualified donations(arguing this is
non-productive in that either way ICANN should receive donations).  ICANN is not
receiving donations.  ICANN does not have a staff to solicit donations.  ICANN is
denied donations routinely.

Why is ICANN denied donations?
How do we correct the Problem?

My understanding is that the denial stems from lack of fulfillment of it's
charitable mission.  I believe that the at-large studies will confirm this.  This
is basically the same rudimentary problem that will cause the DoC not to approve
the new contracts or new gTLDs.  You simply cannot have a couple of Ivy leaguers
deciding the policy.  Keep in mind most the donations come from the same type of
Ivy Leaguers and they can see right through to the problem. (don't jump too quick
I have great respect, admiration and ties to Ivy leaguers).

No constituency is responsible for the funding problem, ICANN staff is!  Do not
hold NCDNHC responsible for staff's failures. Act like a corporation and take the
money out of staff budget until they perform.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Roger and all,
>
>   I am sure that many here appreciate you interesting response to Milton
> post and my response.  It is interesting that as the ONLY member of
> the TLD constituency that you seem to be affirming your support
> for the NCDNHC.  However given your voting record and other
> archive documented comments, using the old financial lever, that
> you do support pricing the NCDNHC out of existence.  If I recall
> correctly, the White Paper nor the MoU incorporates such a
> method for limiting non commercial interests such as the NCDNHC
> form fair, open and equal representation as a constituency.  Hence
> revoking the NCDNHC's voting rights on the NC in this manner
> is inconsistent with adequate accountability from the non commercial
> sector of stakeholders.
>
> Cochetti, Roger wrote:
>
> > Milton-
> >
> > Your comment about my goals or motives is so far off base as to be almost
> > humorous.
> >
> > I happen to be a strong supporter of the continued active participation in
> > the Names Council and the DNSO of the non-commercial constituency and (in
> > previous incarnations when ICANN was being formed) was one of those who
> > strongly advocated (and still advocates) a constituency group for the
> > non-profit sector.
> >
> > Moreover, I happen to be an active participant in and supporter of quite a
> > few non-commercial organizations; all of whom I think should be free to
> > participate in the work of the DNSO if they choose to do so.  In fact, I
> > think I've done as much as anyone to help the non-profit sector take
> > advantage of the Internet and participate in the work of ICANN.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From:   Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent:   Monday, April 30, 2001 5:51 PM
> > To:     Milton Mueller
> > Cc:     ga@dnso.org; Roger Cochetti; icann board address; vinton g. cerf -
> > ISOC; ICANN-EU
> > Subject:        Re: [ga] DNSO funding and the NCDNHC
> >
> > Milton and all assembly members,
> >
> > Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > I want to clarify certain aspects of this issue.
> > >
> > > As a general principle, I believe that the Non-commercial constituency
> > should contribute what it can to the support of the DNSO secretariat. It can
> > and will contribute significantly more than it has.
> >
> >   I am sure that the ICANN BoD will find this to be a positive sign.  At
> > least
> > let's hope they will....  One never knows with the BoD.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > We've been addressing this issue in the NCC since January, e.g. by
> > preparing to impose specific membership fees and other fundraising
> > activities.
> > >
> > > We have two objections to the way this is being done.
> > >
> > > 1. We are not a pre-existing organization. We were thrown together late in
> > 1999 by the creation of the DNSO. The NCDNHC is simply larger, and more
> > heterogeneous in composition, than any other constituency, with the ccTLDs
> > possibly excepted, and has the fewest resources. We need more time to get
> > the organizational and funding issues resolved. This obvious fact is not
> > being taken into account by certain members of the NC.
> >
> >   As you know, the NC in general has been negatively influenced from the
> > usual
> > parties/individuals, Milton.  So it should be of little surprise that the
> > DNSO NC
> > has taken a predominantly negative view of the NCDNHC.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. We don't make money off domain names. Unlike every other constituency,
> > including the ccTLDs. Indeed, there is no significant connection between the
> > legitimacy of a constituency and its ability to raise money.
> >
> >   Agreed in your last sentence here Milton.  And a significant but often
> > overlooked fact.
> >
> > > We all know that the so-called gTLD "constituency" is not a real or
> > legitimate constituency at all. It's just one company. It's ability to pay
> > its share of the $15k has nothing to do with the quality or legitimacy of
> > its input into DNSO policy processes - it simply reflects the fact that NSI
> > was given a very lucrative government monopoly some years ago.
> >
> >   Good point here as well, and one that seems often overlooked as well.  I
> > refer
> > to this a nepotism in its ugliest form.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This fact, too, has not been taken account of by certain members of the
> > NC. They have consistently rejected requests by NCDNHC for a smaller
> > contribution.
> >
> >   Yes.  And as such it seems fairly obvious that certain members of the DNSO
> > NC would wish to eliminate the NCDNHC's voice in the DNSO through pricing.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The conclusion I come to is that certain members, particularly Cochetti,
> > wants very badly to eliminate certain members of the NC.
> >
> >   Yes, this would seem more than obvious to us as well...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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

--
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