[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] DNSO "dues" and voting rights

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

Milton and all,

  I have to agree with Miltons comments and statements here.  I am
sure they will meet with the usual diatribe comments from certain
elements and individuals on the ICANN BoD/Staff, and especially
the NC either publicly or otherwise.

  There is not now, and never has been adequate justification for using
the constituencies as funding sources for ICANN staff and BoD
members.  In fact, as a non-profit corp. ICANN is supposed to
gather it's funding primarily from DONATIONS.   In fact the ICANN
BOD and staff should as Milton suggests paying the constituencies
for policy development where appropriate as Milton also rightly
indicated.  This is true of the DNSO GA as well.



Milton Mueller wrote:

> >>> Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski <iczycykowski@aip.de> 10/02/02 04:44PM
> >>>
> >OK, so we are not the only one in debt to the DNSO. There may even be
> >some political reason for us to boycott the payments. Alas, the real
> >reason is that we simply don't have the money and never will. There
>
> You're wrong, sorry, that "we don't have the money and we never
> will."  My organization could easily afford to pay $100 again,
> or even more. I simply won't do it. It is a value proposition,
> and my answer to the proposition, this year, is NO. Whereas last
> year, it was YES, because it still seemed as if there might
> be some benefit from helping to shape ICANN policy from
> within. I suspect that at least three or four other large
> organizations, who paid $300 to NCDNHC last year, would
> agree with me.
>
> Iliya probably doesn't know that there is a major debate within
> DNSO about whether it makes sense to have ANY constituency
> pay these silly dues, or whether the money for ICANN's policy
> formation should be part of ICANN's budget, and the constituencies
> should concentrate on what they are supposed to do, namely make
> policy, rather than annual fundraising drives.
> All constituencies but registries and registrars agree with me
> that it should be part of ICANN's budget.
>
> Compared to what ICANN spends on Jones Day lawyers the
> amount of money is trivial. Admittedly ICANN is not rich, and needs
> to worry about money, but the $100,000 it would have to pay for
> sound, representative, bottomup policy input is minor.
>
> Note that ICANN charged .org applicants $29,000 for
> evaluations. The NCDNHC supplied a critical part of that
> evaluation and received not a cent. This is one of many
> reasons that I totally reject Dany's contention that this is
> some kind of debt. If there are debts involved, ICANN owes
> me thousands of dollars for my time. The same is true of
> Dany's time.
>
> Note that ICANN declined to let ITU cover some of the
> costs of GAC, and insisted on allocating $45,000 of its own
> funds to support GAC secretariat. The reason is entirely
> political: the ICANN mgmt wants to prop up Twomey and
> hold off ITU. If ICANN lets the DNSO flounder for lack
> of funds it is deliberate, not a matter of lack of money.
>
> How much money did ICANN management spend resisting
> Karl Auerbach's lawsuit, which simply asked them to provide
> Board members with information they have an airtight legal
> right to get?
>
> --MM
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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