Re: [ga] Funding ICANN

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  Well yes you are quite right.  And if you read carefully and completely
my comments/remarks/outline below, you would have noticed that
I made a similar reference to what you are espousing Eric...

  To use an analogy of southwestern origin, "you have to break a few
eggs to make and omelet, but you don't want to kill the chickens that
lay them"...

eric wrote:

> 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

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