RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Thank you David,

|> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
|> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:44 AM
|> 
|> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:02:17 -0800 (PST), Rick H Wesson
|> <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
|> 
|> >On the issue of monies, the GA can do what every other DNSO 
|> constituency
|> >does:
|> 
|> Actually it is not that simple.
|> 
|> >   o find someone you trust
|> >   o have that person open a trust account
|> >   o elect officers (chair, co-chair, and treasurer)
|> 
|> The NC appoints our chair under ICANN bylaws.  We have no power of
|> general competence to elect officers.

This also points out what I stated earlier, the GA is intentionally kept
broke. Any monies donated go directly to ICANN, whom doesn't see a reason to
fund the DNSO. In fact, it requires the DNSO to help fund the ICANN. Exactly
backwards but, it serves to keep the DNSO broke and prevent funding of damn
near anything DNSO.

|> >   o levy dues
|> 
|> Unlike constituencies we have no ability to levy dues and/or remove
|> people for non payment.  Our role is defined in the ICANN bylaws.

Any funds raised in such a manner become the property and are under the
management of, the ICANN. ICANN BoD chooses where to distribute such fund.
If any go to the DNSO, the NC then decides where, in the DNSO, such monies
are to be spent. The GA doesn't even make the second list. Given the
track-record of the NC wrt the GA, what do you think?

|> >There is nothing preventing the GA from doing the above.
|> 
|> The ICANN bylaws do.  
|> 
|> A group of individuals could do the above but that would not be the
|> same as the GA doing it.

That is exactly what I am proposing, a group of individuals.
--
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