RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Peter,
I read you 100%. And I take you very seriously. This is the
position I maintain for a long.  I am only interested in helping
the things to seriously take at last off the ground.

However from experience, I doubt that 200 people will put $ 250
each to be the founders of a benevolent action without a serious
outreach effort. That effort would cost a lot.

So, methinks that the easiest is to find a $ 5,000 for an existing
structure such as the world@wide foundation donating the effort
to the future constituency. The target might be 100 to 300
committed Members - IDNO has already a few - 10.000
registered Members and agreements with 30 ccTLD and 200
or more Registrants and Resellers.

The real point is who is going to get a financial benefit from the
IDNHC. There are three responses:

- positive money (more business) every DN related business
   having been stamped by the IDNHC

- negative money (reduction costs) every business spending
   money in DN holder support that a coherent IDNHC might
   help in relating with DN holders.

- DN holders at large. One to five (as you suggest) cent collected
   through the DN seller or the Registry would be enough. Methinks
   that the IDNHC should agree with Registries offering them
   information on the market, advise in addressing DN related
   problem, third party information and education of the DN holders,
   etc.. against that money collection. So it would be transparent to
   the DN Holder and help the global image of the Internet.

The initial sources of sponsoring are the two first responses.
NSI is among them. The Registrars too.

Chuck, would you consider proposing your Management to:
- help with a very few thousands to get the things working.
- match every dollar we can get form other sponsors
- help making the IDNHC label known in their best interest.
- help in drafting a mutual cooperation charter between
   gTLD constituency Members and IDNHC.

This could be carried under the public scrutiny of the GA.

As soon as Joop, DPF, Joana, WXW, Danny, etc... feel ready
and have incorporated the constituency everything would be
transferred to the IDNHC constituency.


Questions:

- Peter, as a ccTLD Chair. Do you think that this approach is
   sound and would you present to the ccTLD a proposition
   according those lines supported by an IDNHC model site?

   Would you be ready to help drafting a cooperation charter
   between ccTLDs and future IDNHC - which could be added to
   the ccTLD Best Practices proposition?

- same questions to who in here may interface with Registrars?

- same questions to who in here may interface with gTLDs.

- same questions to who in here may interface with IPC

- same questions to who in here may interface with ISPs

- the IDNHC model site will require documentation to be
   presented in he largest number of languages. Would be
   GA Members ready to help in translating the presentation
   in their language?

- it would be nice the IDNHC model site has some fancy
   design. Can someone help?

- it would be appropriate that the IDNHC model site has
   links to existing DN holders supporting sites. IDNO is
   one of them, there are several others. Could you give me
   the URL to the sites you recommend?

- it would be appropriate that the IDNHC model site has
   links to national consumer organizations. I would thank
   you for links to the most appropriate sites.

- it would be appropriate that the IDNHC model site has
   links to national governmental sites explaining the legal
   positions regarding the DNs, the web-site implementation,
   the privacy obligations, the webmaster legal obligations,...
   I would thank you for that information from your country.

(For the above information the target is not to be exhaustive
but in the model site to give examples of the interest to
the DN holder).

Jefsey


On 05:16 15/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>I'd suggest that you (those of you who wish to organize the IDNHC)
>arrange for your own funding, at least until you have a non-profit
>corporation, a bank account, a secretariat, and maybe even a part-time
>"policy officer" or executive.  Then you could propose entering into a
>Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ICANN, similar to the Regional
>ASOs.
>
>You should be able to accomplish that for US $ 50,000. 200 people at $
>250 each could be "founders"
>
>You have to start from a position of strength if you want to get
>anywhere. Once you are established, and gain mailing list support of,
>say 1 million or so DN holders, you might be able to suggest that the
>registrars or registries kick in a percent or something towards funding.
>
>It will NOT work to ask for funding to a non-incorporated body that has
>only 100 or 200 or even 500 Domain name holders, as being representative
>of a majority of IDNH persons.
>
>After all, even 1.0 percent of US $ 250 million in domain name fees
>would be $ 2.5 million dollars. That is 5 times the CENTR budget, 25
>times the ccTLD budget, and about 50% of the budget of ICANN itself.
>
>This is a serious post. There is no sarcasm here. It is my considered
>suggestion as to a possible way for you to move forward.
>
>
>Pet3er de Blanc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Jefsey
>Morfin
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:15 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request
>
>
>Dear Ken, Danny, Peter, and others,
>the problem with the IDNHC - as with the IUC - is to start moving: a
>secretariat, a site, an organization which has to develop before people
>are gathered and start discussing, so before there is anything.
>
>This means two things:
>- an existing organization with resources - even minimum but
>    including a banking account
>- and some money to put into the account.
>
>The world@wide foundation can provide a small organization, banking
>account and initial site provided it gets some helps. Its role is NOT to
>get involved, just to help with practical aspects. This way everyone
>could share into the project (since everyone is supportive) while no one
>would be suspicious about "hidden agenda" or "imposed" structures.
>
>Once the we would start compiling information it would be passed to
>IDNHC sub list on the GA. And the world@wide would handle the site,
>sites, etc... to the IDNHC as created by the DN Holders with most
>probably the help of everyone here. We know that Joop, DPF, Joana are
>ready to commit resources enough for a nice document.
>
>But it would be very nice if we could find some funding. So if anyone
>has concrete suggestion. I think we could manage with a few thousands.
>Would NSI be willing to help and share into the project or any
>Registrars or new TLD?
>
>I suppose this could be a loan as the constituency could make paid the
>use of its label as some quality certificate for DN seller. If only one
>or 2 cent per DN were donated to the IDNHC in exchange, it would have
>its budget.
>
>Jefsey
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 02:19 15/08/01, Ken Stubbs said:
> >if you want to be pessimistic here danny the let me propose another
> >scenario...
> >
> >this is supposed to be a "self-organizing" , "bottoms-up"  process and
> >if the "criteria" your talking about was developed in the manner you
> >prescribe (i.e. my my associates and myself).. we would almost
> >undoubtedly encounter indignation on the part of potential "self
> >organizers" over the fact that some sort of "criteria" or "structure"
> >was being "imposed" on them..
> >
> >the other 7 constituencies "self organized", developed consensus, and
> >"reached out" for potential fellow constituents. that way they got what
>
> >they wanted in an organizational structure and eligibility criteria..
> >none of that  was " imposed" ..
> >
> >sum & substance.....
> >
> >bring the NC & the board something with "substance & support" and i
> >will help make it fly... i have made this committment publicly now for
> >well over a year & a half ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> >To: <ga@dnso.org>
> >Cc: <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:11 PM
> >Subject: Re: Documentation request
> >
> >
> > > Ken Stubbs is looking for a "concrete proposal".
> > >
> > > I would be willing to bet that if a concrete proposal was submitted
> > > to the Board today, the only response that we would receive would
> > > be:
> > >
> > > "Whereas the ICANN Board is in receipt of a proposal regarding the
> > > establishment of a new DNSO constituency; Whereas the Names Council
> > > has been notified that the ICANN Board expects
> >to
> > > receive a bottom-up community-based consensus proposal regarding
> > > criteria governing the establishment of new constituencies; Whereas
> > > the Board is not in receipt of such proposal from the Names
> >Council;
> > > It is hereby resolved that no action on this matter is to be taken
> > > at this time."
> > >
> > > Perhaps Ken can motivate his associates on the Council to finish
> > > drafting such criteria before Montevideo.  If they can commit to
> > > finishing this project by then (the Council Business Plan, after
> > > all, was drafted back in February), then I am sure that our
> > > motivated members can have a concrete proposal ready.
> > >
> > > If we all cooperate we can get this job done.  Ken, are you willing
> > > to
> >take
> > > the lead on this in the Council?  Can you settle the issue of
> > > "criteria",
> >so
> > > that any concrete proposal may be examined in light of this
> > > "criteria"?
> >We
> > > are awaiting the efforts of the Council.  Can we count on your
> > > support to have the Council complete its work in a timely fashion?
> > >
> >
> >--
> >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@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