[ga] Re: GA/DNSO Funding

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Chuck, 

What we are looking for is a voice in the process.   The General Assembly (by 
way of a motion passed by over 80% of the membership) has already expressed 
its interest in participating in the Budget process.  At this time, the 
Budget Advisory Committee still consists of only representatives from the 
four constituencies that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding: the Registrars, 
gTLD Registries, ccTLD Registries, and RIR constituencies (as per the recent 
letter of Stuart Lynn to the registrars:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01048.html ).

Just because these organizations collect the funds that are submitted to 
ICANN does not justify their participation in the budgetary process to the 
exclusion of the rest of the ICANN community.  

This is like saying that because the IRS is the instrument that collects 
funds from taxpayers, only the IRS should have a say in how much money is 
collected or how such funds should be spent.  

What is clear to me is that as new gTLDs are added to the mix, resulting in 
millions of new domain registrations, the average unit amount paid by each 
gTLD registrar (18 cents) goes down accordingly during these current and 
upcoming fiscal quarters.  

Simply maintaining a static rate per registration would result in additional 
funds to ICANN which could be put to use to provide the services we now lack. 
  No one is seeking to hurt either the registrars or registries, but rather 
we seek to develop an appropriate funding vehicle to sustain the activities 
of the DNSO.  Our input into the Budgetary process might result in 
recommendations that could support this effort.  If we continue to be shut 
out of the advisory process, then we will have to rely on the good will of 
the registries and registrars to look after our best interests.   

That would not be an ideal approach.


--
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