Re: [ga] Funding ICANN

[eric <eric@hi-tek.com>]

To say that funding is the single biggest problem of ICANN is like saying a fever
is the largest single problem of a sick and dying man.  Yes it is a problem but it
is a symptom.
Corruption and refusal to honor promises is the disease that causes the funding
symptom.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Danny, Bill and all assembly members,
>
>   Bill is quite right that funding is the single biggest problem that it seems
> Stuart Lynn believes faces ICANN now.  The funding problems ICANN
> has had and it seems continues to have are partly of their own making,
> as many have noted from ICANN's conception.
>
>   In the Lynn/Touton/Simms Plan Stuart Lynn seems to be of the
> believe that $10m will be needed for the management of the DNS
> alone, and a total budget of $50m for ICANN is what the plan
> projected.  Karl Auerbach amongst a growing number of other
> knowledgeable stakeholders have estimated that the budget
> really needed for management of the DNS is between
> $2 and $2m.  And ICANN's total budget should not need
> to exceed $10m as a non-profit Corporation.  INEGroup
> has done two studies that were provided to the NTIA
> regarding budgeting estimates for ICANN to provide
> for their effective operation for over a 5 year period
> and came to about the same conclusions that Karl
> had come to.
>
> How can ICANN achieve stable funding?
>
>   INEGroup believes and has itself demonstrated to our members
> that funding for a non-profit approximately the same size and scope
> of ICANN can best be accomplished by the creation of a Trust
> Instrument where as required by the IRS to meet tax exempt status,
> receives 2/3s of its funding from donations or as a result of proceeds
> originating from donations under 501 (c3).  Once such a "Perpetual
> Living Trust" is established and base funding accomplished, ongoing
> funding needs with a built in 8-10% increase on a yearly basis
> can easily be achieved.
>
>   Presently, and up to this point ICANN has done a poor job
> of soliciting or collection of donations.  This we believe is due
> to several reasons, the greatest of which is that the conduct
> of the ICANN staff and BoD has been sub par.  It seems
> also that funding planning is less than adequate due to the
> prevailing attitude conduct problems and lack of ability of
> the ICANN staff in particular, which has been addressed
> repeatedly in the Internet and mainstream press.  The remaining
> problem that it seems that ICANN has hoisted upon itself,
> which is related to it's personnel conduct, is the failure to
> implement a At-Large membership by which a pool of
> potential donors, as well a membership fees could go
> some distance in securing ongoing funding, but not
> initial funding.  ICANN's fiduciary activity has been much
> less than reasonable as spending in non productive or
> central areas, has been inconsistent with an organization
> that has an admitted funding problem.
>
> DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> > Bill Semich is correct in asserting that the restructuring proposal is very
> > weak on the issue that seems of greatest concern to ICANN right now: funding.
> >
> > Funding is an issue of such importance that it assuredly compelled Mr. Lynn
> > to propose governmental involvement in ICANN, even though official US policy
> > as cited by the White Paper states:  "the U.S. continues to believe, as do
> > most commenters, that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor
> > intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments
> > should participate in management of Internet names and addresses."
> >
> > So, how do we deal with the problem?  Bill has offered one approach... I
> > would like to hear from others... perhaps we could get some feedback from
> > members of the Budget Advisory Group who even now must be in consultation
> > with Stuart Lynn over the details of the new annual budget.  Additionally, it
> > would be of benefit to all of us if we could actually review the preliminary
> > budget (which still has not been posted).  We can't help that much if we
> > continue to be kept in the dark.
> >
> > Perhaps Mr. Lynn can let us know who currently sits on the Budget Advisory
> > Group, and when the proposed budget will be made available for review.
> >
> > --
> > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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