Re: [ga] NCDNHC losing voting rights?

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

Danny and all assembly members,

  It is clear that the ICANN secretariat is unfortunately, but
not surprising, looking for an excuse to remove the voting
rights of the NCC in any way it can and using a method
that is of questionable validity to do so...  This shows
to me anyway that the ICANN staff is in a very sad
state of public affairs and this "Saga" seems to be yet
another nail in ICANN's future political coffin.  A
rebid by DOC/NTIA is yet again justified by these
sorts of practices that are truly aimed at disenfranchisement.

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Harold Feld has submitted the commentary below to the Council list.  At issue
> is whether the Non-Commercial Constituency will (by virtue of a budget
> committee decision) lose their right to vote in the Names Council.  The
> Committee meets tomorrow on this matter.
>
> I wanted to address in advance of our call some of the
> arguments that I have heard pertaining to the non-commercial
> response to the show cause.
>
> First, to refresh everyone on the sequence of events.
>
> The NCC has attempted to comply with the assesment of fees.
> Because the NCC has no central body for collection of fees,
> the NCC asked the ICANN secretariat to collect the individual
> dues paid by members.  The NCC Adcom believed that this would
> be th most efficient mechanism, because the NCC had no othe means of
> collecting fees.
>
> the arrangement proved cumbersome.  The ICANN Secretariat can only
> accept payment in US dollars.  this proved a hardship for many
> of the NCC members.  Many of the NCC members do not have ready
> access to US dollars, and must pay a fee to convert local
> currency into U.S. dollars or to transfer money out of
> their home country.  Administrative problems futher complicated
> matters.  these poblems wer aggravated by the inexperience of the
> NCC Adcom, none of whom had experience in such matters and all of
> whom were thus forced to make best efforts at "on the job
> training."
>
> Despite these technical difficulties, the NCC made best efforts
> to satisfy the fee assesment. Adcom sent invoices, and made
> payment of membership fees a condition of voting in the NCC
> elections.
>
> despite these best efforts, the NCC has been unable to satisfy the
> NC fees assesed.  Accordingly, the DNSO secretariate transmitted a
> letter requiring the NCC to show cause why its voting rights in
> NC should not be suspended.
>
> The NCC Adcom submitted a timely response.  The essence of the response
> is that th NCC has done the best it can to satisfy its obligations
> to the NC.  As a practical matter, however, it is impossible for the NCC
> to comply.  Its members are too poor to provide the necessary funding.
> while some members of the NCC have greater resources than others,
> even the larger organizations do not have the resources to "fill the gap."
>
> It therefore lies with the NC to decide whether it wishes to disenfranchise
> noncommercial interests on a permanent basis because they cannot
> "pull their weight."  And the disenfranchisement would be permanent,
> because the NCC cannot hope to raise the necessary money.  Not now or
> ever.
>
> NCC continues to invoice its "deadbeat" members and to collect a steady
> trickle
> of dues.  These are promptly passed from the ICANN Secretariate to the DNSO
> Secretariate.  We have investigated possible foundation funding.  None exists.
> I have convassed the universe of U.S. foundations that might fund the NCC.
> All have refused.
>
> This in part has to do with the nature of foundation funding (I can speak from
> personal experience only to the United states, but my colleagues outside the
> U.S. inform me that no money exists for this purpose in non-U.S. foundations
> either).  Foundations rarely, if ever, fund open-ended "dependencies" of this
> nature.  Foundations usually fund tax-exempt entities to erform specific
> projects with a concrete result at the end. e.g., produce a study on the
> global
> "digital divide" or wire an impoverished community.
>
> Only two U.S. foundations have funded any ICANN or general "Internet
> Governance"
> work, Markle and Ford.  Both have *cut back* funding.  I have spoken with
> representatives of both organizations and they have informed me that even the
> current funding for travel to ICANN meetings will be discontinued.
>
> As an aside, let me address the statement I have heard from others: the
> non-coms
> find the money to come to ICANN meetings and stay at the ICANN meeting hotel
> so
> they can pay more money for dues.  Most non-coms came to ICANN meetings by
> virtue of the Ford-Markle funding to the Salzburg Seminar, which paid for
> travel
> and accomodations for non-coms.  that money could NOT be repurposed or spent
> on
> anything other than travel and accomodations.  Salzburg made a decision (a
> crrect one, I believe) to place non-coms funded at the center of the action
> and
> thus housed them at the ICANN designated hotel.
>
> In any event, even this money is gone.  As a result, I may add, there will be
> almost no Non-commercial physical presence at Bucharest.  Only by remote
> participation will most non-coms be able to provide input.
>
> So there is no money, and there will not be any new money.  We have only what
> we
> can wring from our members, who have frankly given all they can afford to give
> (and in some cases, more than they can afford, because ICANN participation is
> important to them).  the Budget Committee, and the NC, must therefore decide
> if
> it values the contributions by the NCC sufficiently to waive the remaining
> amount due.
>
> In this reard, let me address a second objection i have heard to finding our
> response to the show cause sufficeint: that the NC should "stick to its
> policies" and, having adopted a policy, should stick with it.  to this I and
> the
> NCC agree.
>
> the policy adopted, however, explicitly recognizes that there are times when
> it
> is appropriate to waive the fees owed.  that is precisely the purpose of a
> "show
> cause" proceeding.
>
> deciding that we have shown sufficient cause, therefore, does no violence to
> the
> rules.  it does not create any exception, or call for any modification of
> anything.  rather, it is a simple application of the existing rule to the
> specific case: the NC finds that the NCC has shown adequate cause to excuse
> its
> non-payment of remaining dues.
>
> I have argued before, and will do so again, that non-commercial stakeholders
> are
> a vital and necessary interest.  many of us represent universities and other
> basic research institutions that support advances in the Internet technology.
> Others are leaders in their local internet communities, providing training and
> connectivity for their countries' most impoverished citizens.
>
> In addition, we bring a diversity of view point, and one which adds great
> legitimacy to the ICANN debate.  ICANN's critics have often charged that it is
> captured by special interests.  the presence of the non-commercial
> consticuency
> as ful participating members helps to negate that charge.  Given the
> trememdous
> interest in international organizations generally to ensure that
> multi-national
> processes engae "civil society" interests, the presence of the NCC does much
> to
> reasure governments and citizens that ICANN will consider all points of view.
>
> By contrast, disenfranchising the NCC will add fuel to the fire.  especially
> at
> a critical juncture such as this, it is imperitive that all voices participate
> equally and, more importantly, be perceived by the world as participating
> equally.
>
> If nothing else, I beg that the Budget Committee (and NC members generally)
> consider the damage to the ongoing ICANN reform process if the NCC is
> disenfranchised at this critical time.  Not only will the NC ad ICANN lack the
> full and diverse input of the NCC.  the absence of th NCC will cast a shadow
> over ICANN reform generally.  Critics will allege that exclusion of the
> non-commercial voices excluded a vital segment of the community, and to the
> benefit of "special interests".  Given that the ICANN reform process
> potentially
> may require that all consticuencies, and the DNSO itself, may need to
> reconstitute itself, forgiving the NCC the difference between what it has
> collected and what it still owes will mae little difference in the long run.
> By
> contrast, exclusion of the NCC can only have profoundly negative impacts on
> the
> reform process.
>
> Harold
> Feld
> --
> 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 124k members/stakeholders 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