Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I agree with your idea of a "foundation". In fact, I am proposing a
> similar project for the ccTLD.

  Good!  >;)

>
>
> I might suggest, however, that requiring a majority vote of the entire
> GA to expend funds might be a bit difficult.
>
> For example, if some ICANN board candidate needed a $ 1,500 air ticket,
> can you imagine how long it might take to get this item thru the GA
> list? ;-)

  Well I think you misunderstood what I meant.  Maybe I should be
more precise or clear.  For instance, as a requirement, anyone
requesting or requiring funding for meetings, travel, ect. a Form
should be made available and a time limit to send in your requests
for funding for travel or whatever, even partial funding for travel,
and reviewed with a certain amount set aside for this purpose.
once the requests have met that amount, any other requests
would be denied or reviewed independently for additional funds
for these or other purposes.  At this time ONLY are ALL of the
requests voted upon by the DNSO GA.  Not on an individual basis..
Is this more clear or precise as to what I was trying to outline?


>
>
> Seriously, though, I am proposing for the wwTLD Foundation a structure
> of a 15 member board of directors and a chairman. Each geographic region
> would supply 3 directors.
>
> The foundation would open with between US $ 2.5 million and $5.0
> million, which should generate a minimum of US $ 150,000 to $ 300,000
> per year (with capital invested at 6%).

  Well you should be able to do allot better than 6%, but this is the right
idea or the idea that I was thinking about.  For instance our fund,
generates
between 12.8% and as high as 34%.  So at this time few donations
or dues are needed.  However we still have a membership due and do
door knocking for donations, for special projects, ect.

>
> Each region could submit requests for funds to their regional directors,
> who would then combine these requests into a disbursement plan.

  Well yes, this in a way, what I was eluding to and briefly outlined
more precisely (See above)...  The key, is in the disbursement plan itself.
But a simple one should do well in the beginning.  Revision may be needed
later as funding and acquiring funding becomes better over time...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:09 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: 'Rick H Wesson'; 'ga ml'; 'Joanna Lane'
> Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
>   I think that funding for travel or other initiatives should come from
> ICANN. However given Stuart Lynn's objection or "Not in the budget"
> excuse at this time, it would seem that private funding is the only
> method available at this late stage before the next ICANN meeting.  So
> in essence, no I have no objection.
>
>   As you know Peter, I would prefer the the DNSO GA and NC be self
> funded. How or what method is used should be open and aboveboard,
> without preference for any individual, and in the management of a
> neutral party, such as a trust.  If done properly, and managed well,
> reinvestment of those funds, once collected, would easily provide for
> almost any funding needs that the DNSO GA and NC members needed.
> However once done, these funds should be earmarked for ONLY DNSO GA and
> NC initiated activities.  Those activities that require or desire the
> use of these funds should also be determined by the DNSO GA members by
> majority vote, before allocation or otherwise release of those funds is
> forthcoming...
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Rick and Jeff.
> >
> > Thank you for your comments on ICANN funding (or not funding)
> > candidates travel.
> >
> > Would you have any objections if the travel was funded outside of
> > ICANN ?
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 2:18 AM
> > To: Rick H Wesson
> > Cc: Peter de Blanc; ga ml; icann board address
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting
> >
> > Rick and all assembly members,
> >
> >   Good point Rick!  ANd again one that has been made time and time
> > again, yet seemingly ignored by a few of the ICANN BoD, staff and the
> > NC.
> >
> > Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >
> > > Danny,
> > >
> > > I would encourage the NC not to fund travel to F2F meetings for
> > > anyone, even if you happen to be one that benefits from such this
> > > time
> >
> > > around.
> > >
> > > With 4 meetings a year, 3 of which cost in the thousands for most to
>
> > > attend, I suggest that the NC and other Constituencies focus on
> > > having
> >
> > > decisions made on the mailing lists and teleconferences.
> > >
> > > The IETF has a long history, like 20 years, of not making decisions
> > > at
> >
> > > F2F meetings. Instead, all decisions are made via mailing lists and
> > > phone conferences. The F2F meetings are for doing work, not decision
>
> > > making.
> > >
> > > It will be increasingly difficult to justify who gets travel
> > > expenses and who does not; all the while increasing the operating
> > > costs of the DNSO which is something we need to keep at a minimum.
> > >
> > > We need to encourage everyone to use the facilities of the Internet
> > > and PSTN to allow everyone a voice, not just those that attend the
> > > F2F
> >
> > > meetings.
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > > Rick Wesson
> > > CTO Registrars Constituency
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Peter,
> > > >
> > > > During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board
> > > > Director election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD
> > > > Constituency, set the criteria that any candidate running for this
>
> > > > job should who be willing to attend Montevideo and meet with the
> > > > Constituencies face to face. As a direct result of your astute
> > > > arguments, the first round of vote cast on the election was
> > > > deferred
> >
> > > > until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear majority of the
> > > > NC.
> >
> > > > If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that if the
> > > > reason
> >
> > > > for non-attendance was financial, then transportation could be
> > > > provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was
> > > > essential. Let me make a clear statement that I am willing to
> > > > attend.
> > > >
> > > > Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations
> > > > to
> >
> > > > participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager
>
> > > > to do so, and more than happy to make the effort to comply with
> > > > your
> >
> > > > requirement of me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and
> > > > understand the particular difficulties of using written questions,
>
> > > > or teleconferences when liaising with a diverse and multi-lingual
> > > > membership. Prior to your statement, I saw good, but not vital,
> > > > reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your statement and the
> > > > supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> > > > candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
> > > >
> > > > While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not
> > > > unfairly disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore
> > > > requesting that you make whatever ground, air and lodging
> > > > arrangements may be necessary for all of us to attend Montevideo.
> > > >
> > > > My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until
> > > > the 4th, but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to
> > > > attend the ccTLD constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at
> > > > your members convenience, another time.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have
> > > > participated in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and
> > > > submitted responses to written questions posed off-list by the
> > > > gTLD.
> >
> > > > I can only assume that any other constituency requirements will be
>
> > > > forthcoming, including the BC, from whom I have not yet heard.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Joanna
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> > 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

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